# Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Jeffries asks _'At what point do we as a society go 'But they were good'... but like... what I'm trying to say is...  "just how talented do you have to be to fuck a kid"?'_


I posted the clip above on the David Bowie RIP thread. Unsurprisingly it got an instant reaction from those who worship Bowie's undoubted musical talent, ability, legacy or indeed genius.

I'm not gonna stink up the RIP thread with a bunfight about Bowie's sexual history and the wider question of pop/rock stars and underage girls - but the dicussion needs to be had.

It is common knowledge that David Bowie - just like Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page and many more contemporaries... and like Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis _et al_ before them... had sex with _lots _of underage girls back in his 70's heyday. Bill Wyman was still at it with 13 year-olds at the age of 50 FFS. It was very common back then. Came with the territory so to speak,

What was commonplace (and generally sniggered at) back then would nowadays get you the jail straight away, but only after you had been suitably, publicly, scorned.

Some celebs - because we love them for their artistic genius - get a bye-ball. Others, such as celebrity DJs and TV presenters, don't. Whether aa Artiste is perceived as a bit of a drug-feuled hornball or a 'dirty fuckin nonce' seems to be dependent on how cool or how influential you are

1. Some will people will argue that this is 'too soon' after his passing to be discussed. I would argue that the same courtesy would not be extended to others - such DJs and other, less artistically accomplished, celebs or indeed people who it is coll to not like.

2. Some people will cry 'where's your proof'? whilst ignoring the widely available anecdotal evidence from contemporaries. Many of these same people require no such level of proof to wade in and pontificate about those they don't like (Cliff anybody? Jim Davidson?)

3. Posters who ventured that 'things were different back then' have basically been called apologists for noncery on here. I wonder would any of those who wailed the loudest turn up on either of the Bowie RIP threads with a somewhat more nuanced view?


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Things were different back then but giving booze and drugs to 13/14 year old virgins before having having sex with them and their mate is still pretty shocking to me   I had no idea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

of course not only rock stars as a number of djs appear to have done precisely the same and in some cases much more.


----------



## Winot (Jan 11, 2016)

Great art has always existed side by side with unacceptable behaviour eg Eric Gill. You can celebrate one and simultaneously condemn the other.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

In terms of it being "different back then" would your average adult man working in an office or shop get away with having 13 year old girlfriends?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> In terms of it being "different back then" would your average adult man working in an office or shop get away with having 13 year old girlfriends?


i doubt it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

being as the age of consent at 16 was put in place in the nineteenth century by the 1970s you'd have thought men would have worked out that there was something even the law recognised as wrong about relationships with young girls. what seems to have been different back then was that rock stars (and djs) seem to have thought the morals everyone else was expected to abide by didn't apply to them, that they were special.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Lot's of outrage on the RIP thread.

Can anyone be arsed checking the comments that some of those so offended may have made on previous threads about not popular/good celebs?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Lot's of outrage on the RIP thread.


this is how they get away with it. not just celebs but within families. turn a blind eye, it's so much easier than dealing with it. and if the victim or someone else raises the issue, call them the cunt.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


it's a legitimate and timely subject for debate. you are trying to shout him down rather than have that debate. history will show you for the cunt that you are.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

For posterity... from the RIP thread.



editor said:


> You've made your point. Repeatedly,  despite the fact that people are grieving and you said ages ago that you were going to start a new thread. So do that (if you must) and shut the fuck up here please.
> 
> One more post from you in this thread and you're banned. What a nasty person you are.




I look forward to the day when yer man responds so quickly and decisively when some uncool/unpopular celeb or even a politician, who is widely reported to have had sex with lots of underage girls, pops their clogs and someone dares mention their sexual past.


----------



## laptop (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> In terms of it being "different back then" would your average adult man working in an office or shop get away with having 13 year old girlfriends?


Actually, I think there's a chance that he would have... So long as  no-one had an interest in dobbing him in. A boy would have been entirely different, outside the aristocracy.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...



Alternatively they could choose to ignore your hypocrisy.


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...



Ignore men fucking kids?


----------



## Cloo (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm not aware of any stories about Bowie but I do still remember when I was a kid the Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith relationship and how the exact same papers these days that decry 'sick paedos' were basically taking a 'Wahey, good on you, you horny old dog!' attitude to his relationship with an underage girl.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


Hang on, I agree trying to start a barney on the RIP thread isn't on, but LiamO has started a new thread and his central point that Bowie's (and lots of others) behaviour was completely disgusting and shouldn't just be whitewashed out is fundamentally correct.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Cloo said:


> I'm not aware of any stories about Bowie but I do still remember when I was a kid the Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith relationship and how the exact same papers these days that decry 'sick paedos' were basically taking a 'Wahey, good on you, you horny old dog!' attitude to his relationship with an underage girl.


i think we've mentioned lori maddox and db several times in the past.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> For posterity... from the RIP thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


to be fair, he was pretty quick in his defence of savile. so you can't say he's inconsistent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


not the time or the place for this sort of thing


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


Why's it trolling? Seems like a perfectly valid point.

Many of these people are, or at least have been, nonces.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Some celebs - because we love them for their artistic genius - get a bye-ball. Others, such as celebrity DJs and TV presenters, don't.


Apart from John Peel.

I remember going to a party (maybe Christmas, might have been New Year) when I was around 14-15, and several of my female classmates had boyfriends in the 18-20 age range.


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Lot's of outrage on the RIP thread.
> 
> Can anyone be arsed checking the comments that some of those so offended may have made on previous threads about not popular/good celebs?



Given that you're not allowed to post in that thread anymore I'll answer you here so I'm not goading you for a reaction.

You could have started this thread regardless of the RIP thread. It's an interesting enough subject and it'll generate plenty of controversy. Instead you waded into the RIP thread where people are grieving and emotional just to upset and anger them. 

You could have done this without being a bellend about it. 

FWIW there's several rock stars I 'd have shagged as an underage schoolgirl. As a happily married 37 year old mother of two I'd still shag them. I know the bigger picture is much more than that but on a personal level it wouldn't have bothered me one bit.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

I was not aware of any stories about Bowie having sex with 13/14 year old girls in the 70s, despite being one of the 13/14 year old girls who met him at the time.

One of my girlfriends threw herself at him after a gig, trying to get a kiss, and bloodied his nose. So he decided he couldn't come back to Friars Aylesbury again because he had become a bit of a star, and there just wasn't any security.

I have honestly never heard that he was one of the known stars to be having underage sex. I certainly was aware at the time of several stars who known for it, but he was not one of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

let's hope nothing new comes out about db and underage girls to mar the fawning mourning elsewhere.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Apart from John Peel.
> 
> I remember going to a party (maybe Christmas, might have been New Year) when I was around 14-15, and several of my female classmates had boyfriends in the 18-20 age range.



But John Peel was 'gooooood' and hugely influential ... so he gets a bye-ball... apparently.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> I was not aware of any stories about Bowie having sex with 13/14 year old girls in the 70s, despite being one of the 13/14 year old girls who met him at the time.
> 
> One of my girlfriends threw herself at him after a gig, trying to get a kiss, and bloodied his nose. So he decided he couldn't come back to Friars Aylesbury again.
> 
> I have honestly never heard that he was one of the known stars to be having underage sex. I certainly was aware at the time of several stars who known for it, but he was not one of them.


google. it's well known. lori maddox/mattix.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

I find the differences in the age of consent across countries interesting. Do you think if we were all Spanish (where it's 13, iirc) we would be quite so ERMAGHERD RAPE about it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


He makes some very good points


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

Wow, people's reaction on the other thread is extraordinary, and not just to Liam's posts. Way way over the top. It seems saying he was anything less than a God is cause for a savaging.


----------



## andysays (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Lot's of outrage on the RIP thread.
> 
> Can anyone be arsed checking the comments that some of those so offended may have made on previous threads about not popular/good celebs?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> FWIW there's several rock stars I 'd have shagged as an underage schoolgirl.


That's not really the point though, is it.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Liam's set up a timely, well thought out, not reactionary at all thread - perhaps the dissenters could post there, instead?


Inserting this post on here to keep it off the RIP thread, although that in itself makes the same point I was going to respond with to this comment, the same point many others have made in fact - were others with similar pasts afforded such graces on threads about their death?

While Bowie doesn't mean as much to me as he clearly does to others, I do have some understanding of his impact, not just in terms of cultural impact but also the personal impact he had on peoples' lives. However, I think the issue still needs to be acknowledged, or at least some consistency needs to be applied - i.e. if you don't think it's appropriate on Bowie's thread, it isn't appropriate on any thread about someone's death.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

I think it's very easy to blame what was an all pervasive cultural problem on famous names who had the opportunity to indulge more than most. That isn't to say that I disagree with the current prosecutions and reckoning with the past we are undertaking now, and doesn't make the behaviour of many people then absolutely shocking from our viewpoint.

The sexual ogling of very young girls and women was absolutely acceptable well into this century (Charlotte Church, anyone?) and lots of people had sex with underage but post pubescent women, including the man in his thirties who had a relationship with me when I was underage in the early 90s. No-one reported him, and no-one reported millions of 'ordinary' men.

It's your gleeful self-righteousness and threats to police other posters that I find most distasteful on the this and other thread, OP. Look, I'm edgy! Like a sixth form debater.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why's it trolling. Seems like a perfectly valid point.
> 
> Many of these people are, or at least have been, nonces.



Because the cunt started it on a RIP thread


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

In the 70s a lot of girls I was at school with had older boyfriends. My sister was 14 and her boyfriend was 20. 

I'm not condoning it but there's a massive difference between that and being a serial rapist


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> That's not really the point though, is it.



No, of course not. That's why I said around it that it was purely on a personal level and that the whole subject was much more than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Inserting this post on here to keep it off the RIP thread, although it makes the same point I was going to respond with to this comment, the same point many others have made in fact - were others with similar pasts afforded such graces on threads about their death?
> 
> While Bowie doesn't mean as much to me as he clearly does to others, I do have some understanding of his impact, not just in terms of cultural impact but also the personal impact he had on peoples' lives. However, I think the issue still needs to be acknowledged, or at least some consistency needs to be applied - i.e. if you don't think it's appropriate on Bowie's thread, it isn't appropriate on any thread about someone's death.


i think that if people really gave a fuck about bowie they'd give a fuck about him in the round rather than saying 'i like that bit but not that bit so the bit i didn't like i won't think about'. i'm a fan of john lydon but i know that he paid his poll tax, he's done a load of things i don't entirely agree with, but there you go - he wouldn't be john lydon if i whisked away all the bits i don't like.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Because the cunt started it on a RIP thread


Again - have other threads about celebrity deaths been kept clear of such accusations? Or is it just for the ones where people are apparently mourning?

Genuinely not trying to be provocative or stick the boot in, just feel the alarming reaction to a decent point needs highlighting.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Because the cunt started it on a RIP thread


Why shouldn't it be brought up there, it exactly where it should be brought up. Peoples reaction to this is disgusting
Hypocritical fuking cunts the lot of you.


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> In the 70s a lot of girls I was at school with had older boyfriends. My sister was 14 and her boyfriend was 20.
> 
> I'm not condoning it but there's a massive difference between that and being a serial rapist



I did in the 90s.

And the labels aren't helpful imo. I don't think that (whilst grim) older people shagging teenagers is paedophillia. I think there is a difference. But I'm not entirely sure where I would draw the line either :/


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

Is there any other activity that used to be socially acceptable/something everyone did, but has now become a crime/terrible deed? Plenty of drug-related activity, I would guess - heroin/cocaine used to be a thing polite society did once upon a time. Struggling to think of anything else, though.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> In the 70s a lot of girls I was at school with had older boyfriends. My sister was 14 and her boyfriend was 20.
> 
> I'm not condoning it but there's a massive difference between that and being a serial rapist


Has anyone called Bowie a serial rapist?

From what I can tell the point is simply that he (allegedly? - I honestly wasn't aware of these accusations so don't know how substantiated they are) had sex with a 13-year old.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Why shouldn't it be brought up there, it exactly where it should be brought up. Peoplea reaction to this is disgusting
> Hypocritical fuking cunts the lot of you.


don't you hfc me you fucking cunt


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> And the labels aren't helpful imo. I don't think that (whilst grim) older people shagging teenagers is paedophillia. I think there is a difference. But I'm not entirely sure where I would draw the line either :/


Hebephilia, isn't it? Something like that, anyway. The line is drawn at puberty.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I find the differences in the age of consent across countries interesting. Do you think if we were all Spanish (where it's 13, iirc) we would be quite so ERMAGHERD RAPE about it?


Spain's AoC is 16 now. They increased it. Many of the countries with seemingly low AoC's also have laws that the guy has to be within (for example) 3 years of the age of the girl.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> The sexual ogling of very young girls and women was absolutely acceptable well into this century (Charlotte Church, anyone?)


depends what you mean by acceptable. just because it was in the sun, doesn't mean it had widespread acceptance.


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Hebephilia, isn't it? Something like that, anyway. The line is drawn at puberty.



Well yeah but I went through puberty at 11 which still seems very childlike to me. 

A couple of years later though and it was a whole different story. 

Given everyone matures at different rates it's a very difficult thing to pinpoint to an age.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> google. it's well known. lori maddox/mattix.


Nope. 

Frankly, I don't want to. 

I was simply sharing my experience/knowledge, as far as it went.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Hebephilia, isn't it? Something like that, anyway. The line is drawn at puberty.


is it? i think the reason the aoc 16 is so that people are not only post-pubescent but to understand the consequences of their actions.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Hang on, I agree trying to start a barney on the RIP thread isn't on, but LiamO has started a new thread and his central point that Bowie's (and lots of others) behaviour was completely disgusting and shouldn't just be whitewashed out.



In fairness, my point is not so much that 'Bowie's (and lots of others) behaviour was completely disgusting and shouldn't just be whitewashed out.' but...

a) The blatant hypocrisy in how we view what they did. If we like or admire a person's work there is a tendency to focus on their achievements/canon of work rather than their sexual shortcomings. If we _don't _like them then we focus on their sexual proclivities and ignore their work.

If Bowie had been a politician, especially a tory one, or Jim Davidson or  how many people would be queueing up to demand he get a poitive-comments-only RIP thread? None. In fact clowns like 8den would probably be leading the charge to pillory them.

b) I would recognise that how Bowie _et al_ carried was wrong and exploitative but, as has been noted above, it was something that was both widespread and mostly sniggered at at the time. Anybody at the same shite these days would have no such excuses.

It seems a bit daft to me to project modern-day conventional wisdom onto the actions of people 40/50 years ago.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> is it? i think the reason the aoc 16 is so that people are not only post-pubescent but to understand the consequences of their actions.


Yes - I was only talking about the actual definition of paedophilia (as I understand it, I may be wrong).


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> depends what you mean by acceptable. just because it was in the sun, doesn't mean it had widespread acceptance.



Please do mansplain my experience of what men found acceptable to do.  I assure you, plenty did and do find it completely so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Please do mansplain my experience of what men found acceptable to do.  I assure you, plenty did and do find it completely so.


there was all that nonce-sense about 'now it's legal to ogle her' or similar.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> Well yeah but I went through puberty at 11 which still seems very childlike to me.
> 
> A couple of years later though and it was a whole different story.


Absolutely. My daughter is 13, and I can't imagine her throwing herself at a popstar.



> Given everyone matures at different rates it's a very difficult thing to pinpoint to an age.


Do you think that (given the above is true) that people (well, women/girls as a group) matured at a different rate _back then_? We know the whole concept of 'teenagers' never really existed until the 50s/60s.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> Nope.
> 
> Frankly, I don't want to.


don't blame you, it'd only make uncomfortable reading. you'd be better off just popping up on a thread and declaring your ignorance. that would be a much better course of events.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

editor said:


> The banning thread was for disrupting the thread. The FAQ is very clear on that. No posts have been removed or content edited.


Disrupting the thread? He didn't go completely off-topic or drag up years' old cross-thread beef, he brought up an issue (possibly not in the most subtle or considerate way, I'll grant you...) relevant to Bowie's legacy and similar to issues that have been raised on _many_ "x has died" threads.

Again, I think a large part of it is just a call for consistency - are the past transgressions of a well-known person fair game to be mentioned on a thread about their death?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> don't blame you, it'd only make uncomfortable reading. you'd be better off just popping up on a thread and declaring your ignorance. that would be a much better course of events.


Well, luckily, that is pretty much what everyone else is doing, so I am in good company.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Please do mansplain my experience of what men found acceptable to do.  I assure you, plenty did and do find it completely so.


i remember my mates brother in law who shagged a thirteen year old from a care home having to go into hiding because a tooled up mob was after him.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Absolutely. My daughter is 13, and I can't imagine her throwing herself at a popstar.
> 
> 
> Do you think that (given the above is true) that people (well, women/girls as a group) matured at a different rate _back then_? We know the whole concept of 'teenagers' never really existed until the 50s/60s.


I know 13 and 14 year olds who did just that. Threw themselves at Bowie. In the early 70s. 

And were rejected by him.

Not that that proves anything, but it is as relevant as anything on this thread.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...


If he was a Republican politician's brother you would be singing a different tune.

The timing and the content of what Bowie said in his Great White Knight (Edit: or Thin White Duke, even) period also seems to get played down. Lemmy and the Sex Pistols might have enjoyed dressing up in German vintage accessories, but Bowie's public statements about Hitler in the late 1970s were inexcusable.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> i remember my mates brother in law who shagged a thirteen year old from a care home having to go into hiding because a tooled up mob was after him.



Thank God you're here, otherwise I'd have had to rely on the collective experience of women.


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Absolutely. My daughter is 13, and I can't imagine her throwing herself at a popstar.
> 
> 
> Do you think that (given the above is true) that people (well, women/girls as a group) matured at a different rate _back then_? We know the whole concept of 'teenagers' never really existed until the 50s/60s.



I was talking about physically really as we were talking about the definitions but I really don't know. I was a teenager in the 90s so I don't have any other experience. And I'm not asking my mum


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> In terms of it being "different back then" would your average adult man working in an office or shop get away with having 13 year old girlfriends?


No, but they would probably have got away with saying "phwoar, what I wouldn't do with that" or similar.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 11, 2016)

Hypocrisy is a bit of a strong word, unless one is willing to accept that everyone does it (focus on what they admire, ignore what they don't) about the people/things that they like. I think the expectation that people will want to have a measured conversation about the acceptability of the behaviour of someone whose art they admire, within hours of hearing that that person has died, is a bit high. Yes it's a double standard, but what are you saying? That people must be neutral about everyone? Of course people are going to have favourites, be shocked and upset when those favourites die and not particularly want to discuss the things that tarnish their memory Right Away. Doesn't make (all of) them apologists, just people. 

Have this discussion by all means. Be clinically impartial about everything and everyone (I bet you're not though), but _lower your expectations _


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Guineveretoo said:


> Nope.
> 
> Frankly, I don't want to.
> 
> I was simply sharing my experience/knowledge, as far as it went.



With respect, Guineveretoo, isn't that a perfect illustration of the point I was making.

You say 'I didn't know anything about this' and then when you are guided to where you can read all about it, you politely decline. Because you _know_ it will conflict with your cherished view of the man. It's a natural, caring, human reaction

A bit like the way my mum's generation reacted to my generation starting to point out that far too many Priests were predatory nonce-cases.

_* not calling Bowie this btw. Sexually exploiting (willing, keen even) young teenagers is in a long way down the scale from raping children._


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> Ignore men fucking kids?


TBF, that was a bit of a societal norm for altogether far too long...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

Oh, to use a concrete example from previously on u75 - Cilla Black. Did Cilla Black get a respectful and entirely positive RIP thread?

I think it's also worth making the more general point that what people are currently feeling now about Bowie, and have felt previously about the likes of Lemmy and many others, is exactly the sort of thing others go through about other public figures who may not garner the same respect or feeling of emotion on here. So again, do we leave the RIP thread for respectful comments only and devoid of comments such as "who?" or "why should I even care?", or is it a place for people to share any opinions on the deceased, whatever they may be?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO is not one of my favourite people, but his point here is indisputable.

And I don't think he was wrong to make that point on the RIP thread either. Bowie may have been a great artist, but he was also only a man - a man who made some great art but also did some unforgivable things.

I first heard the stories about him circa 2005. At the time I wrote it off, partly because it seemed inconsistent with the lyrics of things like "Rock n' roll suicide". The line from that song "I'll help you with the pain" seemed to imply a capacity for empathy which a sexual predator could not (I assumed) possess. Well, I'm not able to write it off any longer, am I? Nor am I able to avoid the conclusion that the established facts undermine the credibility of his art.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh, to use a concrete example from previously on u75 - Cilla Black. Did Cilla Black get a respectful and entirely positive RIP thread?
> 
> I think it's also worth making the more general point that what people are currently feeling now about Bowie, and have felt previously about the likes of Lemmy and many others, is exactly the sort of thing others go through about other public figures who may not garner the same respect or feeling of emotion on here. So again, do we leave the RIP thread for respectful comments only and devoid of comments such as "who?" or "why should I even care?", or is it a place for people to share any opinions on the deceased, whatever they may be?


if you liked the person you should be able to deal with their less popular aspects.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> But John Peel was 'gooooood' and hugely influential ... so he gets a bye-ball... apparently.


I think most people on here do have a more abivalent view of Peel than that - and in time, probably will of Bowie. 

I think the likes of Gary Glitter & Savile are in a separate league to Peel, Bowie and those guys from Led Zepelin. Who're the celeb nonces who you think have had a bum deal?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> People with disabilities don't get to be bellends unchallenged.


But in any case cheap shots at their disability should be avoided, surely?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Jeffries asks _'At what point do we as a society go 'But they were good'... but like... what I'm trying to say is...  "just how talented do you have to be to fuck a kid"?'_
> 
> 
> I posted the clip above on the David Bowie RIP thread. Unsurprisingly it got an instant reaction from those who worship Bowie's undoubted musical talent, ability, legacy or indeed genius.
> ...



btw technically not pedophiles unless prepubescent - on average 11 and under


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> if you liked the person you should be able to deal with their less popular aspects.



And I, and many others on the RIP thread, can, even when very upset. We just find someone taking the opportunity to demonstrate their oh so wondrous iconoclasm a bit wearing and baiting, and point this out when they do.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> LiamO is not one of my favourite people, but his point here is indisputable.
> 
> And I don't think he was wrong to make that point on the RIP thread either. Bowie may have been a great artist, but he was also only a man - a man who made some great art but also did some unforgivable things.
> 
> I first heard the stories about him circa 2005. At the time I wrote it off, partly because it seemed inconsistent with the lyrics of things like "Rock n' roll suicide'. The line from that song "I'll help you with the pain" seemed to imply a capacity for empathy which a sexual predator could not (I assumed) possess. Well, I'm not able to write it off any longer, am I? Nor am I able to avoid the conclusion that the established facts undermine the credibility of his art.



I think it's more the way he went about it ; posting the "comedy" clip. A bit schoolyard sniggering, like, rather than offering his opinion.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think most people on here do have a more abivalent view of Peel than that - and in time, probably will of Bowie.
> 
> I think the likes of Gary Glitter & Savile are in a separate league to Peel, Bowie and those guys from Led Zepelin. Who're the celeb nonces who you think have had a bum deal?



There was a quite painful thread about Peel on here (I think following a Julie Burchill piece slagging him off) which started quite defensive and "quietist" but developed into a good conversation which was a bit more nuanced...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Hypocrisy is a bit of a strong word, unless one is willing to accept that everyone does it (focus on what they admire, ignore what they don't) about the people/things that they like. I think the expectation that people will want to have a measured conversation about the acceptability of the behaviour of someone whose art they admire, within hours of hearing that that person has died, is a bit high. Yes it's a double standard, but what are you saying? That people must be neutral about everyone? Of course people are going to have favourites, be shocked and upset when those favourites die and not particularly want to discuss the things that tarnish their memory Right Away. Doesn't make (all of) them apologists, just people.
> 
> Have this discussion by all means. Be clinically impartial about everything and everyone (I bet you're not though), but _lower your expectations _


I think this is a very good point; people affected by Bowie's death will be very raw at the moment and probably not in the best place to have a nuanced debate. In one way the timing is unfortunate, but in some ways I do feel like it's the right time to _start_ the debate, if not have it, just to highlight the fact this goes on _while it's going on_, rather than well after the fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> And I, and many others on the RIP thread, can. We just find someone taking the opportunity to demonstrate their oh so wondrous iconoclasm a bit wearing, and point this out when they do.


it's not wondrous iconoclasm and you're not wondrous iconodules.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> With respect, Guineveretoo, isn't that a perfect illustration of the point I was making.
> 
> You say 'I didn't know anything about this' and then when you are guided to where you can read all about it, you politely decline. Because you _know_ it will conflict with your cherished view of the man. It's a natural, caring, human reaction
> 
> ...


No. I was sharing my experience of Bowie and of being a 13/14 year old girl at the time, not asking for a link to something.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I think it's more the way he went about it ; posting the "comedy" clip. A bit schoolyard sniggering, like, rather than offering his opinion.


I didn't see the clip. But it seems to have got peoples' attention, hasn't it?


----------



## seventh bullet (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> TBF, that was a bit of a societal norm for altogether far too long...



I know. I'm a survivor of such a thing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I think this is a very good point; people affected by Bowie's death will be very raw at the moment and probably not in the best place to have a nuanced debate. In one way the timing is unfortunate, but in some ways I do feel like it's the right time to _start_ the debate, if not have it, just to highlight the fact this goes on _while it's going on_, rather than well after the fact.


People affected by Bowie's death? People who never met or knew the man? Are you mental? 

No should invest that much in any star.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not wondrous iconoclasm and you're not wondrous iconodules.



The OP and others were rather happily taking about digging up posts and pointing out hypocrisy at the start of this thread. Does give the impression of self-righteousness.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> LiamO is not one of my favourite people, but his point here is indisputable.
> 
> And I don't think he was wrong to make that point on the RIP thread either. Bowie may have been a great artist, but he was also only a man - a man who made some great art but also did some unforgivable things.
> 
> I first heard the stories about him circa 2005. At the time I wrote it off, partly because it seemed inconsistent with the lyrics of things like "Rock n' roll suicide". The line from that song "I'll help you with the pain" seemed to imply a capacity for empathy which a sexual predator could not (I assumed) possess. Well, I'm not able to write it off any longer, am I? Nor am I able to avoid the conclusion that the established facts undermine the credibility of his art.



It was more the way he posted it, and the follow up posts, that irritated. At least, irritated me. 

he appeared to be gleeful at being able to disrupt what was clearly a thread where people were expressing their heartfelt grief.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> But in any case cheap shots at their disability should be avoided, surely?



Rather dishonest of you to quote my post in a thread in which I didn't post it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Because the cunt started it on a RIP thread


Plenty of celebrity RIP threads on here are disrespected. 

What's special about Bowie?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> The OP and others were rather happily taking about digging up posts and pointing out hypocrisy at the start of this thread. Does give the impression of self-righteousness.


i'll be sure to point that out should you ever point out hypocrisy


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> Please do mansplain


this was a nice little dig. i was six months old when the seventies started. does that trump you on your intersectionality chart? where is rosemary west on this chart?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'll be sure to point that out should you ever point out hypocrisy



We can always rely on your relentless dedication to such tasks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Plenty of celebrity RIP threads on here are disrespected.
> 
> What's special about Bowie?


he has the big battalions on his side. imagine if someone had started an rip thatcher thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> We can always rely on your relentless dedication to such tasks.


you can now


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...





eoin_k said:


> If he was a Republican politician's brother you would be singing a different tune.



too-fuckin-che me old cocksparrer


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> Rather dishonest of you to quote my post in a thread in which I didn't post it.


I'm trying to keep the debate off the RIP thread out of respect for those affected by his death. It's easy for people to follow your quote back to establish context, or for you to provide further context if you feel it's necessary.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you can now



I feel tremendously cowed, and will absolutely be on my best behaviour.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2016)

His music was shit anyway (as well as him being a nonce)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> His music was shit anyway (as well as him being a nonce)


in that case you'll be glad to know he is unlikely to produce any new material.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> I was a teenager in the 90s so I don't have any other experience. And I'm not asking my mum


so, as you didn't exist much, if at all, in the seventies and i did, can you accept my experience of it could possibly be more valid than yours without it being ''mansplaining''?


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm trying to keep the debate of the RIP thread out of respect for those affected by his death. It's easy for people to follow your quote back to establish context, or for you to provide further context if you feel it's necessary.



You took my response out of context and then say it's my responsibility to contextualise it?

You didn't link to the original post on the other thread, so only people who have read both threads closely will find it 'easy to follow my quote back'.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> People affected by Bowie's death? People who never met or knew the man? Are you mental?
> 
> No should invest that much in any star.


You don't have to have met or known someone to be hugely affected by their work/actions, particularly with artists. It's not about someone being a 'star' (well, sometimes it is, but an equal amount of time it isn't), it's about what the affect their lives had on others.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> You don't have to have met or known someone to be hugely affected by their work/actions, particularly with artists. It's not about someone being a 'star' (well, sometimes it is, but an equal amount of time it isn't), it's about what the affect their lives had on others.


I think you meant to write "effect", not "affect" there.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> You took my response out of context and then say it's my responsibility to contextualise it?
> 
> You didn't link to the original post on the other thread, so only people who have read both threads closely will find it 'easy to follow my quote back'.


A quote automatically links back to the original thread - there's a little arrow next to the quoted poster's name which will take you to their original post.

It is unfortunate that this thing is being carried on across two threads, but I thought quoting you on here rather than keeping it all going on the RIP thread was the lesser of two evils.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> in that case you'll be glad to know he is unlikely to produce any new material.



Didn't they say that about 2Pac?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I think you meant to write "effect", not "affect" there.


Fuck it, changed the sentence half way through writing it and forgot to amend the grammar accordingly, didn't I?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> In fairness, my point is not so much that 'Bowie's (and lots of others) behaviour was completely disgusting and shouldn't just be whitewashed out.' but...
> 
> a) The blatant hypocrisy in how we view what they did. If we like or admire a person's work there is a tendency to focus on their achievements/canon of work rather than their sexual shortcomings. If we _don't _like them then we focus on their sexual proclivities and ignore their work.
> 
> ...



Whats happened until innocent until proven guilty? I've no doubt that he may have slept with underage girls (and possibly boys too), but there is a legal framework in place where they can report it. Yet as far as I know there have never been any investigations into Bowies conduct, and bringing a bunch of unfounded allegations up in an RIP thread seems a bit of a cunts trick to be totally honest.

That said, its a conversation that does need to be have, especially in light of the ongoing probes, but there's a time and a place, and an RIP thread, is not it, especially as there's been no specific public allegation against him.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2016)

I can't believe some of the responses to LiamO, they justify the video he put up perfectly. I think that the way that the internet encourages this low effort hysterical collective mourning of celebrities is very unhealthy in the first place partly because it leads to outcomes like this.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 11, 2016)

'a space oddity' is a track which remains good to listen to on a decent hifi system which will reproduce some decent lower registers.  Apart from that, Mr Bowie could be taken or left.

Didn't he have an unfortunate flirtation with far right iconography?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I can't believe some of the responses to LiamO, they justify the video he put up perfectly. I think that the way that the internet encourages this low effort hysterical collective mourning of celebrities is very unhealthy in the first place partly because they lead to outcomes like this.



His putting up that "comedy" video, was like a drive by tagging. If he'd meant to have a serious discussion on inappropriate sexual behaviour; surely he could have started this thread first, without posting on the RIP thread?


----------



## Glitter (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> so, as you didn't exist much, if at all, in the seventies and i did, can you accept my experience of it could possibly be more valid than yours without it being ''mansplaining''?



I haven't said anything about your experience of anything?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Oh, to use a concrete example from previously on u75 - Cilla Black. Did Cilla Black get a respectful and entirely positive RIP thread?



Indeed she did not.

Many people commented, including myself, commented on her working-class-tory/celebrity-tory-icon status.

Others commented on the fact that she was pally with a lot of celebrity nonces (both those convicted in courts and those long-convicted by rumour)


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

redcogs said:


> 'a space oddity' is a track which remains good to listen to on a decent hifi system which will reproduce some decent lower registers.  Apart from that, Mr Bowie could be taken or left.
> 
> Didn't he have an unfortunate flirtation with far right iconography?



It went further then that. He adopted a neo-nazis persona that made public statements, eulogising Hitler and calling for a right-wing coup in Britain, during a period of racial tension.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> His putting up that "comedy" video, was like a drive by tagging. If he'd meant to have a serious discussion on inappropriate sexual behaviour; surely he could have started this thread first, without posting on the RIP thread?



I did not realise that certain celebrities required 'safe spaces' from discussion of their rape of children.


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> His putting up that "comedy" video, was like a drive by tagging. If he'd meant to have a serious discussion on inappropriate sexual behaviour; surely he could have started this thread first, without posting on the RIP thread?


Indeed. It's certainly a discussion worth having, but including a simple link to this thread would have been far more appropriate for the RIP thread.


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> It went further then that. He adopted a neo-nazis persona that made public statements, eulogising Hitler and calling for a right-wing coup in Britain, during a period of racial tension.


He was also completely fucked out of his head on coke. Good analysis here: 


> Bowie's ill-advised and offensive flirtation with Nazism was partially the result of cocaine psychosis and extreme misjudgement, but it was also wilfully misunderstood and exaggerated by the press at the time. Riffing on the theme of links between totalitarianism and rock music that had arisen in a Kraftwerk interview in Creem magazine just months beforehand, this was the start of a period where he became spectacularly unstuck.


http://thequietus.com/articles/0359...about-adolf-hitler-and-new-nazi-rock-movement


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

Hitler took too much speed, so I guess we should give him an easy ride while we're at it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> I did not realise that certain celebrities required 'safe spaces' from discussion of their rape of children.



It wasn't a discussion. It was a youtube video; deliberately posted to provoke, confusion, anger and grief. If he wanted a proper discussion; why not create this thread first?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> If he was a Republican politician's brother you would be singing a different tune.
> 
> .



Are you really comparing Bowie to a man who repeatedly raped and assaulted his daughter for nearly ten years?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Hitler took too much speed, so I guess we should give him an easy ride while we're at it.



Can you remind me which album Bowie invaded Poland on?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Are you really comparing Bowie to a man who repeatedly raped and assaulted his daughter for nearly ten years?


Yes, he's saying they're comparable. Which is not the same thing as saying they're identical.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> It wasn't a discussion. It was a youtube video; deliberately posted to provoke, confusion, anger and grief. If he wanted a proper discussion; why not create this thread first?



It's Diana all over again


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

sim667 said:


> Whats happened until innocent until proven guilty? I've no doubt that he may have slept with underage girls (and possibly boys too), but there is a legal framework in place where they can report it. Yet as far as I know there have never been any investigations into Bowies conduct, and bringing a bunch of unfounded allegations up in an RIP thread seems a bit of a cunts trick to be totally honest.
> 
> That said, its a conversation that does need to be have, especially in light of the ongoing probes, but there's a time and a place, and an RIP thread, is not it, *especially as there's been no specific public allegation against him.*






LiamO said:


> 1. Some will people will argue that this is 'too soon' after his passing to be discussed. I would argue that the same courtesy would not be extended to others - such DJs and other, less artistically accomplished, celebs or indeed people who it is cool to not like.
> 
> 2. Some people will cry 'where's your proof'? whilst ignoring the widely available anecdotal evidence from contemporaries. Many of these same people require no such level of proof to wade in and pontificate about those they don't like (Cliff anybody? Jim Davidson?)


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> It's Diana all over again



Can you answer my question?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 11, 2016)

So basically you were bored, so you thought you'd do some unfounded finger pointing based on anecdotes, and cause a furore on a RIP thread is what you're trying to say?


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, he's saying they're comparable. Which is not the same thing as saying they're identical.


A bit of perspective sometimes helps when you're making comparisons though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I think you meant to write "effect", not "affect" there.


the power of the pedant is strong in this one


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the power of the pedant is strong in this one


MASTER


----------



## andysays (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Has anyone called Bowie a serial rapist?...





LiamO said:


> ...It is common knowledge that David Bowie... ...had sex with _lots _of underage girls back in his 70's heyday...



That looks to me like calling him a serial rapist.

I think it's fairly common knowledge that Bowie had sex with one particular thirteen year old girl (it gets brought up here often enough) but that doesn't make him either a serial rapist or a paedophile.

I'm a fan of some of Bowie's music, but I'm not going to try to excuse in any way his having sex with a thirteen year old - it's inexcusable.

That doesn't mean that any old unsubstantiated shit should be thrown at him, as it is being here, but it also doesn't make me like his music any less (similarly with other artists who have done cuntish things) because it's possible to separate appreciating the music from idolising the person.

And Liam is just doing his tried and tired old outrage trolling schtick, this time with added encouragement for others to do his dirty work on a thread he's already shat on and been warned off posting on again.

It's almost as if he cares more about having a pop at various posters than the actual issue he's using to do it...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> MASTER


i am but luke skywalker to your yoda or obi


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Can you answer my question?



If you are in grief for Bowie despite not being related to him or knowing him personally that's a bit weird anyway, I don't think that LiamO should have to account for that sort of irrationality.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

sim667 said:


> So basically you were bored, so you thought you'd do some *unfounded* finger pointing, a



?


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> A quote automatically links back to the original thread - there's a little arrow next to the quoted poster's name which will take you to their original post.
> 
> It is unfortunate that this thing is being carried on across two threads, but I thought quoting you on here rather than keeping it all going on the RIP thread was the lesser of two evils.



OK, I didn't know about the arrow. But still, with no explicit indication that it's not the case I think most people would assume that a quoted post is part of the discussion in which it's being quoted, not another one in which the context is significantly different.

I think Guineveretoo's responses on the other thread adequately reflect my feelings too about whether someone was really subject to cheap shots because of their disability.

I don't _know _whether editor was deliberately using emanymton's disability to slag him off, but it seems vanishingly unlikely on the basis of anything else I've ever read by him.  To my mind it's simply been leapt on as an excuse for evading the valid criticism of being an insensitive twat on an RIP thread for someone whose work means a very great deal to many people.

Of course the latter shouldn't preclude discussions like those on this thread, but that was obviously not the time and place and emanymton's first post on that thread was a facetious wind-up, hardly a serious attempt to start a serious discussion.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> It went further then that. He adopted a neo-nazis persona that made public statements, eulogising Hitler and calling for a right-wing coup in Britain, during a period of racial tension.


He was later contrite about that episode and apologised, which is something that Clapton _never_ did.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> ?



Anecdotal evidence is unfounded as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 11, 2016)

Pop star high on drugs talks shit quell suprise.

Next the member of blue views on dolphins and 9/11

Artists their works may or may not be worth something.
 Their views on anything other than their work not so much


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

editor said:


> He was also completely fucked out of his head on coke.


that's all right then. like ike turner. or some rapist/murderer/whatever that was fucked off their head on drugs when they did what they did*. 

*i can't be bothered to look because there are literally hundreds of thousands of people locked up in prisons all over the globe with exactly the same excuse for their actions.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Are you really comparing Bowie to a man who repeatedly raped and assaulted his daughter for nearly ten years?



There's good rape, and there's bad rape, right?


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

J Ed said:


> If you are in grief for Bowie despite not being related to him or knowing him personally that's a bit weird anyway, I don't think that LiamO should have to account for that sort of irrationality.



I don't believe it's irrational to be affected by the death of someone who has made an impact on your life.

And that goes for anybody in the public eye. I'm sure some people who had never met Thatcher or weren't related to her reacted with some emotion when she passed.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, he's saying they're comparable. Which is not the same thing as saying they're identical.



Btw the issue with Adams is not that his brother is a child rapist. It's that Adams was aware of his crime for years, and not only did nothing about it, but he allowed Liam  to continue his job as a youth worker in two areas that Adam had control over, and when challenged on this Adams lied under oath.

The issue with Adams is not his brothers crime it's Adams complicity in his crime.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

I cried a bit when I heard about his death on the radio this morning, and think he's the most significant figure in rock music of the last 50 years or so. But I don't think it's inappropriate or too soon to discuss his failings. It's the exact right time to be doing it.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Btw the issue with Adams is not that his brother is a child rapist. It's that Adams was aware of his crime for years, and not only did nothing about it, but he allowed Liam  to continue his job as a youth worker in two areas that Adam had control over, and when challenged on this Adams lied under oath.
> 
> The issue with Adams is not his brothers crime it's Adams complicity in his crime.


All of which makes him an ideal candidate for membership of the Irish political establishment.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> There's good rape, and there's bad rape, right?



What a pathetically disingenuous argument, you may as well equate involuntary man slaughtered with a serial killer, because hey "they're both killers am I right"


----------



## redcogs (Jan 11, 2016)

Saw him do an excellent 'dancing in the streets' routine with someone called Jagger a while back.  

It impressed.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> OK, I didn't know about the arrow. But still, with no explicit indication that it's not the case I think most people would assume that a quoted post is part of the discussion in which it's being quoted, not another one in which the context is significantly different.


Fair enough, well I am sorry for not making it clearer. As I said, this one's a tricky bugger to navigate!



billy_bob said:


> I don't _know _whether editor was deliberately using emanymton's disability to slag him off, but it seems vanishingly unlikely on the basis of anything else I've ever read by him.  To my mind it's simply been leapt on as an excuse for evading the valid criticism of being an insensitive twat on an RIP thread for someone whose work means a very great deal to many people.


For what it's worth I don't honestly think editor was taking a shot at emanymton's dyslexia, simply his spelling, although I do think that's a bit of a cheap and unnecessary shot to score points on anyway. Dyslexia is a tricky one because you don't know if someone has dyslexia or made a typo, but in either situation it's a bit of an unnecessary thing to take them to task over during a debate about a completely separate subject.

Plus, I know emanymton started a thread a while back about the low-level abuse people get on here for spelling so I think it's something he's sensitive to.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> What a pathetically disingenuous argument, you may as well equate involuntary man slaughtered with a serial killer, because hey "they're both killers am I right"


Fucking hell


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> What a pathetically disingenuous argument, you may as well equate involuntary man slaughtered with a serial killer, because hey "they're both killers am I right"



Are you equating raping a 13-year old with involuntary manslaughter?


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> I don't _know _whether editor was deliberately using emanymton's disability to slag him off, but it seems vanishingly unlikely on the basis of anything else I've ever read by him.  To my mind it's simply been leapt on as an excuse for evading the valid criticism of being an insensitive twat on an RIP thread for someone whose work means a very great deal to many people.
> 
> Of course the latter shouldn't preclude discussions like those on this thread, but that was obviously not the time and place and emanymton's first post on that thread was a facetious wind-up, hardly a serious attempt to start a serious discussion.


That was absolutely the case. It had NOTHING to do with his dyslexia (which I knew nothing about) but everything to do with his unpleasant and inappropriate post and the cheap insults he threw around.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

redcogs said:


> Saw him do an excellent 'dancing in the streets' routine with someone called Jagger a while back.
> 
> It impressed.


This is not a thread about Bowie, this is a more general thread about issues raised by his death


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

editor said:


> That was absolutely the case. It had NOTHING to do with his dyslexia (which I knew nothing about) but everything to do with his unpleasant and inappropriate post and the cheap insults he threw around.


This is what you said on my thread about it. 



editor said:


> Surely the title should read: "A very, very small handful of posters on Urban 75 are hostile to people with dyslexia (and presumably other similar disabilities)"?
> 
> I don't like to hear of anyone getting picked on, but I really wouldn't describe the overall vibe here as 'hostile'. I'd say it's one of the most supportive communities on the web, in fact.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 11, 2016)

Maybe 


8den said:


> Btw the issue with Adams is not that his brother is a child rapist. It's that Adams was aware of his crime for years, and not only did nothing about it, but he allowed Liam  to continue his job as a youth worker in two areas that Adam had control over, and when challenged on this Adams lied under oath.
> 
> The issue with Adams is not his brothers crime it's Adams complicity in his crime.



Maybe Adams was off his head on Coke at the time.....


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2016)

It's pretty straightforward. We as a society should not tolerate grown men fucking children. No free passes whether they are much loved cultural icons, captains of industry, important power brokers, close friends, family members or blokes down the pub. 

How can we hope for a world in which our daughters are not harassed or demeaned or raped - or a world in which our sons do not harass or demean or rape - if we collectively are prepared to dole out free passes to the abusers with the most charisma?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

editor said:


> That was absolutely the case. It had NOTHING to do with his dyslexia (which I knew nothing about) but everything to do with his unpleasant and inappropriate post and the cheap insults he threw around.


You know about it now though. Most decent people would simply apologise and move on. It's perfectly possible to censure a poster without reference to their spelling.


----------



## purves grundy (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Is there any other activity that used to be socially acceptable/something everyone did, but has now become a crime/terrible deed? Plenty of drug-related activity, I would guess - heroin/cocaine used to be a thing polite society did once upon a time. Struggling to think of anything else, though.


Not so much activities but think how much attitudes to social issues like mental health, physical disabilities, race etc have changed. Bullying too. I like to think we're better at identifying and dealing with the callous and exploitative now (then again, Tories an that). Don't think there's anything viewed as so sinister as the sexual exploiter though - there's a gulf in the level of social disapproval of say, someone doing a Joey Deacon impression behind someone with cerebral palsey and an 18-year old waiting outside the school gates for his 14-year old girlfriend. Both of which were very common during my 80s childhood.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> All of which makes him an ideal candidate for membership of the Irish political establishment.



While I grant you that the majority of Irish political leaders are stupid corrupt and veinal I struggle to think of any one of them actively covering up child abuse or ordering the torture and execution of a single mother.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

i'd like to ask all the bowie whitewashers how they do it?

seriously. i used to absolutely love the sound of david ruffin's voice until i found out he hit tammi terrel in the head with a hammer. i'd love to be able to listen to the temptations again without that thought popping into my head. he had more and better excuses than bowie as well. drugs as well as a terrible childhood. and it's easier to use the ''separate the art from the artist'' with him as he wasn't a writer of the songs but this must be more difficult to do with bowie as the lyrics are the poetic thoughts of a man at various times gripped by right wing paranoia and having sex with a thirteen year old.

any help?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> This is not a thread about Bowie, this is a more general thread about issues raised by his death



One of the issues raised by his death might be whether his contribution to art and culture music and politics was valuable (or not)?

my answer is i'm not sure.

i don't believe in having sex with underage people, so im a bit critical of Mr Bowie in this area.

On the other hand, i've been a hypocrite in my life, on several occasions.  So i'm a little reluctant to hurl too much shit.

Its the peril of being  liberal 'spose.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> While I grant you that the majority of Irish political leaders are stupid corrupt and veinal I struggle to think of any one of them actively covering up child abuse or ordering the torture and execution of a single mother.


Our glorious Taoiseach is the direct political descendant of the fellow who started the practice of executing informers, and whose forces were given to such charming activities as executing anti-government troops by tying them to land mines. He and his colleagues have been quite happy to let people be transported through Shannon airport to the CIA's black sites, where they can be tortured at will.

As for covering up child abuse, have you really forgotten what used to go on in Ireland? And do you really think the Irish political establishment was not complicit in that?

I don't like GERRY and I'm sceptical of SF's claim to be a progressive party, but I think you've let your dislike of the man blind you to the wider picture.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

I had sex with underage girls of 14/15 when I was 17/18, but then I haven't released any pop or rock records.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Our glorious Taoiseach is the direct political descendant of the fellow who started the practice of executing informers, and was given to such charming activities as executing anti-government troops by tying them to land mines. He and his colleagues have been quite happy to let people be transported through Shannon airport to the CIA's black site, where they can be tortured at will.
> 
> As for covering up child abuse, have you really forgotten what used to go on in Ireland? And do you really think the Irish political establishment was not complicit in that?
> 
> I don't like GERRY and I'm sceptical of SF's claim to be a progressive party, but I think you've let your dislike of the man blind you to the wider picture.



Hmm. Good point. I'm sure FG have had some better moments, surely?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's pretty straightforward.


you would think so, wouldn't you?


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Fair enough, well I am sorry for not making it clearer. As I said, this one's a tricky bugger to navigate!
> 
> For what it's worth I don't honestly think editor was taking a shot at emanymton's dyslexia, simply his spelling, although I do think that's a bit of a cheap and unnecessary shot to score points on anyway. Dyslexia is a tricky one because you don't know if someone has dyslexia or made a typo, but in either situation it's a bit of an unnecessary thing to take them to task over during a debate about a completely separate subject.
> 
> Plus, I know emanymton started a thread a while back about the low-level abuse people get on here for spelling so I think it's something he's sensitive to.



As you say, you can't see someone's disabilities online. That might be a reason not to sneer at someone's spelling in an otherwise reasonable post, but when someone's being deliberately provocative it's disengenous to turn round and act appalled if anyone rises to it. Maybe it would be a better world if no-one ever did rise to it, but that's human nature, right? On the internet as in life, we tend to mirror the tone and attitude of what we're responding to: angry and intemperate posts get shouted at, cheap and snide ones get cheap shots back.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Hmm. Good point. I'm sure FG have had some better moments, surely?


Oh god. You think FG is still Garrett's party, don't you? You poor eejit.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You know about it now though. Most decent people would simply apologise and move on. It's perfectly possible to censure a poster without reference to their spelling.


decent. that's the important word in that post. what it hinges on.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Oh god. You think FG is still Garrett's party, don't you? You poor eejit.



I haven't a clue, mate. I don't get back much these days and FF, FG, Labour, PDs, DL, Greens, SF are all the same to me.

On a personal level, I met Garrett back in the 90s and found him to be an amiable sort. But then, I met Bertie too and thought the same thing!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> decent. that's the important word in that post. what it hinges on.


You'll get a warning if you're not careful.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You'll get a warning if you're not careful.


i don't give a fuck what that cunt does.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Our glorious Taoiseach is the direct political descendant of the fellow who started the practice of executing informers, and whose forces were given to such charming activities as executing anti-government troops by tying them to land mines.



So Endas guilt of his grandfathers crimes? 

Jesus that's a fucking stretch. 




> He and his colleagues have been quite happy to let people be transported through Shannon airport to the CIA's black sites, where they can be tortured at will.
> 
> As for covering up child abuse, have you really forgotten what used to go on in Ireland? And do you really think the Irish political establishment was not complicit in that?
> 
> I don't like GERRY and I'm sceptical of SF's claim to be a progressive party, but I think you've let your dislike of the man blind you to the wider picture.



I think there's a world of difference between the states complicity with clerical sexual abuse & having your own niece come to you and tell you she is being raped and not only do nothing about it but let your brother continue to act as a youth worker in two different jobs. 

And you'll notice I've never once defended or justified any Irish governments handling of clerical sex abuse


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

Phwoar, steady on mate. Don't want to lose you!

@discokermit


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 11, 2016)

billy_bob said:


> As you say, you can't see someone's disabilities online. That might be a reason not to sneer at someone's spelling in an otherwise reasonable post, but when someone's being deliberately provocative it's disengenous to turn round and act appalled if anyone rises to it. Maybe it would be a better world if no-one ever did rise to it, but that's human nature, right? On the internet as in life, we tend to mirror the tone and attitude of what we're responding to: angry and intemperate posts get shouted at, cheap and snide ones get cheap shots back.


I honestly don't think emanymton was being disingenuous in their reaction though - I think they are clearly sensitive about their spelling so when someone takes a pop shot at it emanymton honestly gets quite upset.

And while yes, in "the heat of the battle" we'll say something stupid that doesn't really reflect our better selves, the virtue of being on a web forum and writing stuff down is that you get a moment to reflect on what you've said and edit before hitting "post", and then also cool down and apologies in subsequent posts while not necessarily undermining whatever your original point was. Sometimes easier said than done though, I'll concede.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I haven't a clue, mate. I don't get back much these days and FF, FG, Labour, PDs, DL, Greens, SF are all the same to me.
> 
> On a personal level, I met Garrett back in the 90s and found him to be an amiable sort. But then, I met Bertie too and thought the same thing!



PDs, DL, Greens?

It's worse than I thought. _You're from the 1990s._


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> I had sex with underage girls of 14/15 when I was 17/18, but then I haven't released any pop or rock records.



Really? I never did.

To the best of my knowledge, the only times I had any kind of sexual contact with anyone I knew was under 16 was when I was myself under 16. Between the ages of 12 and 16, of course, my only aim in life (and that of my mates) was to have as much sexual contact as possible - whether this was with girls our own age (or 1 year younger) or, better still, older 'women' (ie girls 1 or more years older than us).

When I was 21/22 I worked two summers on a holiday camp and was propositioned many times by underage girls - as was everybody else with a penis and two eyes. Basically at that age, there would be no excuse for encouraging or engaging in it. We knew it was both wrong and definitely dangerous to your liberty (or life). I realise this may have been something more of a grey area for some of my 18-yr old colleagues.

Given that we were surrounded by 150 other staff - who were all 18+ and were all on their own personal discovery of sex 'n' drugs, plus all the young single mothers there on holiday, there really was no need to chase young girls. Unless of course you were that way inclined. A few were. The vast majority were not.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

Edit changed my post didn't mean to quote Spymaster 


editor said:


> That was absolutely the case. It had NOTHING to do with his dyslexia (which I knew nothing about) but everything to do with his unpleasant and inappropriate post and the cheap insults he threw around.


Thinking about it, prior to you posting this I had mentioned on two threads I know you are reading that you had posted on my thread about dyslexia. It seems odd for your make no reference to it. Come on you know you were wrong, maybe that is why you keep avoiding posts directly relating to it. Just apologise, and we can get on with the business of disagreeing about Bowie. You can go back to telling me to fuck of instead if it will make you feel better.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Really? I never did.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the only times I had any kind of sexual contact with anyone I knew was under 16 was when I was myself under 16. Between the ages of 12 and 16, of course, my only aim in life (and that of my mates) was to have as much sexual contact as possible - whether this was with girls my own age or, better still, older 'women' (ie girls 1 or more years older than us).
> 
> ...



yes really, (you may notice other people say, my mates brother or this friend in school did)

unless you mean the pop and rock records bit?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> So Endas guilt of his grandfathers crimes?
> 
> Jesus that's a fucking stretch.
> 
> ...



I don't agree that there's that big a difference, and I contend further that the idea that Adams' guilt is qualitatively different is not a credible one.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Thinking about it, prior to you posting this I had mentioned on two threads I know you are reading that you had posted on my thread about dyslexia. It seems odd for your make no reference to it. Come on you know you were wrong, maybe that is why you keep avoiding posts directly relating to it. Just apologise, and we can get on with the business of disagreeing about Bowie. You can go back to telling me to fuck of instead if it will make you feel better.


Perhaps he might think about rescinding my totally unreasonable warning whilst he's at it. 

It makes him look completely vindictive and high-handed.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> PDs, DL, Greens?
> 
> It's worse than I thought. _You're from the 1990s._



Let's put it this way, I remember when being me was illegal


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

One comment suggesting that 8den is exhibiting double standards and he tries to turns this into a thread about Irish politics...  I've never been an apologist for Adams's behaviour in this affair. My only points 8den was that there seemed to be double standards with which you relish an opportunity to reflect upon it and your attempts to silence Liam's comments - on this thread - about Bowie's apparent abuse of his sexual power over much younger women.

I'm no more equating the two than I'm equating Bowie with Hitler when pointing out that taking lots of drugs isn't a great excuse for his public racist outbursts.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> yes really, (you may notice other people say, my mates brother or this friend in school did)
> 
> unless you mean the pop and rock records bit?



Nope.

I remember there being a wierd kind of snobbery around at the time. Once you were 'legal' it was considered somehow 'uncool' to have sex with 'jailbait' (a term which was applied to both girls a couple of years younger and also to those a few week's younger than you who, up until you turned 16, were super desirable).

Having said that, I'm sure some of those whowe met in Pub's at 16-19 were probably telling porkies about their age.

That's a whole lot different to a grown man in a position of power/authority 'de-virginising' young girls he knows are well below the AoC though.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 11, 2016)

i started a thread some years ago asking why it was acceptable to play Micheal Jackson records on the radio but not Gary Glitter records.

apparently, its because they are good. how little changes.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> being as the age of consent at 16 was put in place in the nineteenth century by the 1970s you'd have thought men would have worked out that there was something even the law recognised as wrong about relationships with young girls. what seems to have been different back then was that rock stars (and djs) seem to have thought the morals everyone else was expected to abide by didn't apply to them, that they were special.






> *THE TRUTH: *Maddox was, amazingly, just 14 when she met Page, though Page did what he could to keep the relationship hidden. *Even in the swingin' Seventies this kind of thing could put you in jail.* But with no TMZ or _Us Weekly_, Page got away with it. He eventually dumped Maddox for the of-legal-age Bebe Buell.
> 
> Read more: Jimmy Page Dated a 14-year-old Girl While He Was in Led Zeppelin - The 10 Wildest Led Zeppelin Legends, Fact-Checked
> Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

treelover i don't know what point you're trying to make in post #178


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps he might think about rescinding my totally unreasonable warning whilst he's at it.



Oh. Did you get one too? How sweet.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> Given that you're not allowed to post in that thread anymore I'll answer you here so I'm not goading you for a reaction.
> 
> You could have started this thread regardless of the RIP thread. It's an interesting enough subject and it'll generate plenty of controversy. Instead you waded into the RIP thread where people are grieving and emotional just to upset and anger them.
> 
> ...



that is you, but there will be plenty of women, and it is always women, who will regret it, may have even damaged them.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

seventh bullet said:


> I know. I'm a survivor of such a thing.


Too many people are.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Oh. Did you get one too? How sweet.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ilar-disabilities.339711/page-3#post-14311715


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> What a pathetically disingenuous argument, you may as well equate involuntary man slaughtered with a serial killer, because hey "they're both killers am I right"



So you're saying Bowie didn't mean to have sex with kids?


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Nope.
> 
> I remember there being a wierd kind of snobbery around at the time. Once you were 'legal' it was considered somehow 'uncool' to have sex with 'jailbait' (a term which was applied to both girls a couple of years younger and also to those a few week's younger than you who, up until you turned 16, were super desirable).
> 
> ...



Not sure if having a car was a position of power/authority but they where not virgins that's for sure. Also slept with a woman who was 32 when I was 18 so I'm sure it was more a shag anything attitude rather than exclusively trying to stick my dick in 15 year olds. I lost my virginity at 13 to a 15 year old girl from school on my lunch break, her mates said she was pregnant the next day,, I had no idea what the fuck had gone on at the time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Too many people are.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you're saying Bowie didn't mean to have sex with kids?



No but if he was unaware the person was underage it would be a mitigating factor.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Not sure if having a car was a position of power/authority but they where not virgins that's for sure. Also slept with a woman who was 32 when I was 18 so I'm sure it was more a shag anything attitude rather than exclusively trying to stick my dick in 15 year olds. I lost my virginity at 13 to a 15 year old girl from school on my lunch break, her mates said she was pregnant the next day,, I had no idea what the fuck had gone on at the time.



just to be clear.

The last line of my post was refering to Bowie et al, not you. 

I don't think their is much wrong with kids of 16/17 wanting to shag other kids of 14/15. i think the laws should reflect that, as they apparently do in many countries, whilst also making it a more serious offence when the age gap is bigger.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> just to be clear.
> 
> The last line of my post was refering to Bowie et al, not you.
> 
> I don't think their is much wrong with kids of 16/17 wanting to shag other kids of 14/15. i think the laws should reflect that, as they apparently do in many countries, whilst also making it a more serious offence when the age gap is bigger.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> No but if he was unaware the person was underage it would be a mitigating factor.



I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> No but if he was unaware the person was underage it would be a mitigating factor.


We are talking about a 13 year old


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

I didn't know bowie was dead

I didn't know he was a nonce

this is an awfl start to the day. Almost as bad as Rolf


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

I don't think what Bowie did is quite the same as say, Polanski - even if Bowie did give her drugs and alcohol it seems to have been consensual and the woman feels ok about it.  But also being a good musician shouldn't give you a free pass.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie



Okay can you show me were in that account Bowie was aware she was 15?


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> I don't think what Bowie did is quite the same as say, Polanski - even if Bowie did give her drugs and alcohol it seems to have been consensual and the woman feels ok about it.  But also being a good musician shouldn't give you a free pass.



Can sex between an adult man and a 13-year old girl be consensual?


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Can sex between an adult man and a 13-year old girl be consensual?


Legally I believe it can.  Under 13 and it is rape.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

> t went further then that. He adopted a neo-nazis persona that made public statements, eulogising Hitler and calling for a right-wing coup in Britain, during a period of racial tension.



I didn't know he had called for a right wing coup, not sure how many of his acolytes would have joined him, not least they would have been amongst its first victims.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> We are talking about a 13 year old



in the quote I posted she insinuates, but does not outright claim, that she had turned 15 at the time. Given that her post-Bowie attachment with Jimmy Page is widely acknowledged to have taken place when she was 14 years old, I don't find that credible.

She is just attempting to give Bowie a fig-leaf of decency.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2016)

Interesting interview here:
David Bowie – Playboy Magazine  –  The Uncool - The Official Site for Everything Cameron Crowe


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> No but if he was unaware the person was underage it would be a mitigating factor.


Christ, seriously? The adult has responsibility not the child.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

treelover said:


> I didn't know he had called for a right wing coup, not sure how many of his acolytes would have joined him, not least they would have been amongst its first victims.



Probably not the best choice of words on my part, this is the sort of thing I was referring to:



> _I'd love to enter politics. I will one day. I'd adore to be Prime Minister. And, yes, I believe very strongly in fascism. The only way we can speed up the sort of liberalism that's hanging foul in the air at the moment of a right-wing, totally dictatorial tyranny and get it over as fast as possible. People have always responded with greater efficiency under a regimental leadership. A liberal wastes time saying, "Well, now, what ideas have you got?" Show them what to do, for God's sake. If you don't, nothing will get done. I can't stand people just hanging about. Television is the most fascist, too. Adolf Hitler was one of the first rock stars. _


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie


Yuck.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Christ, seriously? The adult has responsibility not the child.



And if the adult isn't aware the other party is a child?

Did you get proof of age from every one of your sexual partners before you shagged?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> in the quote I posted she insinuates, but does not outright claim, that she had turned 15 at the time.


In that article she says she _had not_ turned 15 at the time.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> And if the adult isn't aware the other party is a child?
> 
> Did you get proof of age from every one of your sexual partners before you shagged?


This often seems to be brought up in trials of men having sex with very young girls - "she looked older", "she was dressed like a slapper", "she wasn't even a virgin" - and those defences are ripped apart on sites like this.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> In that article she says she _had not_ turned 15 at the time.


I read an article earlier by her saying she lost her virginity to DB and then later dated Jimmy Page when she was 14, so 15 doesn't make sense.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

This is an interesting article from somebody on the inside. Can't imagine the reaction if this had been written by a bloke. 

Predatory Teenage Girls


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> No but if he was unaware the person was underage it would be a mitigating factor.



But he was. And if you've seen the evidence you'll know he was. And if you haven't, why are you talking about it? 

Your's is the darkest and most unpleasant comment I've read on this not particularly pleasant thread. Think before you post.

Haven't seen the RIP thread. Love Bowie's music, not a fan of the noncery. Same with Woody Allen's films. Also like the Beatles, doesn't mean I have to make apologies for wife beaters. Big fan of Chuck Berry, never been known to defend secretly filming women urinating. Can we all please just remember that even if they thought they were having the most amazing time, these were two (not one, people who've suggested it was only one) girls aged 12/13 who (because of night shifts - read VULNERABLE CHILDREN) had no one to keep an eye on them of an evening, who were given large quantities of drugs, and who were quite literally passed around by people like Bowie and Jimmy Page. Yeah, maybe they enjoyed it, maybe many of us would have enjoyed similar scenarios. That's not the point though - the point is the likes of Bowie and Page enjoyed it. That's messed up.

Can everyone please remember that? It's not a lot to ask.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> In that article she says she _had not_ turned 15 at the time.



Yes. And then says she actually had sex with Bowie some _6 months later_. hence my post 



LiamO said:


> in the quote I posted she insinuates, but does not outright claim, that she had turned 15 at the time.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> LiamO is not one of my favourite people, but his point here is indisputable.
> 
> And I don't think he was wrong to make that point on the RIP thread either. Bowie may have been a great artist, but he was also only a man - a man who made some great art but also did some unforgivable things.
> 
> I first heard the stories about him circa 2005. At the time I wrote it off, partly because it seemed inconsistent with the lyrics of things like "Rock n' roll suicide". The line from that song "I'll help you with the pain" seemed to imply a capacity for empathy which a sexual predator could not (I assumed) possess. Well, I'm not able to write it off any longer, am I? Nor am I able to avoid the conclusion that the established facts undermine the credibility of his art.


jean jeanie is forver tainted thats for fucking sure. Jesus man, why can't people I like be blameless and upstanding


J Ed said:


> His music was shit anyway (as well as him being a nonce)


not true, he had some belters


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Christ, seriously? The adult has responsibility not the child.


A mitigating factor doesn't absolve the adult of responsibility - the offence would still have been committed. But it might have a bearing on the eventual outcome, particularly sentencing.

We're having to do a lot of mopping up of the harms done in the past in a time when this kind of behaviour was (to choose my words carefully) less unacceptable. That's not going to be a straightforward or clear-cut process.

Attitudes about underage sex 40 years ago were different, and to some extent more at odds with the laws, which are broadly the same now. Since then, laws have been tightened up, particularly in regard to the specifics of offences, penalties have been significantly increased, and attitudes have changed considerably: try doing the "phwoar" thing about a 13 year old girl now and the result is likely to be a distinct _froideur_ around the place. Get caught actually having sex with one, and it is far more likely (though arguably still not likely enough) that investigations would be made, and charges a definite possibility.

I don't want to excuse what happened in the past, but I can at the same time see how, given the prevailing attitudes, people got away with it. The funny thing is...if you went back in time with our present attitudes, you'd probably find yourself being shouted down for being "politically correct" (if that term had even been invented then). A lot of people would, without the benefit of hindsight, been really quite relaxed about it, even though it was as illegal then as it is now, and would have seen the kind of debate going on here as quite ridiculously over the top. It absolutely isn't, and I am glad (in part for some obvious personal reasons) that we are much more uptight about people having sex with kids, but I don't think it helps to lose sight of the very profound difference in the way these things are viewed now.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> This often seems to be brought up in trials of men having sex with very young girls - "she looked older", "she was dressed like a slapper", "she wasn't even a virgin" - and those defences are ripped apart on sites like this.


"she looked older" - I have never in my entire life met a teenage girl who looked like anything other than what she was.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "she looked older" - I have never in my entire life met a teenage girl who looked like anything other than what she was.


Depends on your degree of wishful thinking. I have seen 12 or 13 year old girls who, all made up, could have passed for anything from 15-20. So if "could have passed" is someone's criterion for "is she old enough?", then I think there are young girls out there who could be said to pass for much older.

However, if someone is remotely concerned about how old they _actually_ are, rather than making an excuse for themselves, you don't usually have to spend very long in conversation with someone to spot the difference between a 13 year old and (say) a 17 year old.

Unless someone has gone right out of their way to deliberately mislead someone of their age (and arguably not even then), there's no excuse for assuming they're 16 or over. If you're in any doubt at all, it's wiser and safer to assume they're underage and leave well alone.

Which I think is more like the prevailing attitude generally nowadays - whereas, 30-40 years ago, it was probably the other way around - "if she looks old enough, that's good enough for me". And they'd probably have got away with that...30-40 years ago. Hopefully not now.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Lot's of outrage on the RIP thread.
> 
> Can anyone be arsed checking the comments that some of those so offended may have made on previous threads about not popular/good celebs?


Only sadness that you put it on that thread rather than just starting this one. I absolutely adore Bowie. He's a massive part of my life. That doesn't mean I think this discussion shouldn't be had or that you/one/I can't find that behaviour contemptible. But, yeah. Cheers for doing it there.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> But he was. And if you've seen the evidence you'll know he was. And if you haven't, why are you talking about it?



But the evidence hasn't been posted here.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "she looked older" - I have never in my entire life met a teenage girl who looked like anything other than what she was.



Don't agree. Teenage boys tend to me much easier to 'age'.

I regularly pick up my 16-yr old daughter and 13-yr old son from teenage club nites (supposedly alcohol-free but in reality the kids just get pissed before they go in) and often ask 'How old is she?' when I see some pissed-up young wan tottering along on her 6-inch heels. 

I agree that teenage girls look like teenage girls... but actually telling their age is much more difficult. Maybe that's cos I'm old. You know you are getting old when you look at scantily-clad teen girls and your first thought is either 'You'll catch your death' or 'think of your poor kidneys'.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i started a thread some years ago asking why it was acceptable to play Micheal Jackson records on the radio but not Gary Glitter records.
> 
> apparently, its because they are good. how little changes.




That said; you rarely hear MJs "PYT"


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> If you're in any doubt at all, it's wiser and safer to assume they're underage and leave well alone.
> 
> Which I think is more like the prevailing attitude generally nowadays - whereas, 30-40 years ago, it was probably the other way around - "if she looks old enough, that's good enough for me". And they'd probably have got away with that...30-40 years ago. Hopefully not now.



Agreed. Can you imagine someone coming out with the likes of _"If they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to butcher"_ these days? (how plain _wrong_ is that on _every_ level?) 

In my youth I would have heard that most days - from everyone from school mates to (later) workmates - and most people would either snigger or agree. If they disagreed, they would mostly stay silent.

I would suggest that the opposite is the case these days.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Don't agree. Teenage boys tend to me much easier to 'age'.
> 
> I regularly pick up my 16-yr old daughter and 13-yr old son from teenage club nites (supposedly alcohol-free but in reality the kids just get pissed before they go in) and often ask 'How old is she?' when I see some pissed-up young wan tottering along on her 6-inch heels.
> 
> I agree that teenage girls look like teenage girls... but actually telling their age is much more difficult. Maybe that's cos I'm old. You know you are getting old when you look at scantily-clad teen girls and your first thought is either 'You'll catch your death' or 'think of your poor kidneys'.


Yes, but you live in South Armagh, where the stress of living hits people hard.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> LiamO is not one of my favourite people, but his point here is indisputable.



Awww. Cursed by your inherent decency, eh? Idris2002 

_e2a posted this before you posted your derogatory stuff about sunny south Armagh... you book-reading, bog-hoppin, culchie, Cannuck, academic-refugee-from-all-things-Culchie _


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...



You're a cunt . And history will vilify you.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, but you live in South Armagh, where the stress of living hits people hard.



Au contraire Idris2002. I think you are confusing sunny south Armagh with inner-city Belfast. Besides, now the hilltop squatters have fucked off, streees levels are akin to any rural community... with the highest concentration of Hair and Beauty salons on the island.

And anyway, dem Dishcos do be in cosmopolitan places like Dundalk, 'Blayney, Dungannon and even Newcastle.

Blayney was (IME) the most intimidating. Lot's of pissed-up, aggressive, Nordie teens (from Lurgan and Portadown mostly) and lots of pissed-off, aggressive, Culchie Gardai.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> I had sex with underage girls of 14/15 when I was 17/18, but then I haven't released any pop or rock records.



ive released several records but NEVER got with anyone! i promise you its all lies!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

malatesta32 said:


> ive released several records but NEVER got with anyone! i promise you its all lies!


it's just a pity david bowie didn't take your virginity then


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i think we've mentioned lori maddox and db several times in the past.



I was reading a book on led zeppelin over Christmas and that stuff page was at was outrageous . And that bonham guy was a dangerous fucking rapist . A real danger to women.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Probably not the best choice of words on my part, this is the sort of thing I was referring to:




What an idiot, a 'deviant' like him would have been first to be shot, probably like Lorca, in the backside.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it's just a pity david bowie didn't take your virginity then



Wow. Nasty.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> This is an interesting article from somebody on the inside. Can't imagine the reaction if this had been written by a bloke.
> 
> Predatory Teenage Girls


I don't buy this, and I find the co-option of the term "predatory" rather unpleasant.

Predatory behaviour is about power, essentially - either in terms of physical control, or the ability to emotionally manipulate. It needs both someone willing to exercise that predatory activity, and someone vulnerable or naive enough to fall prey to it.

When we talk about "predatory paedophiles", we are talking about people who can use their comparative emotional sophistication (or, more rarely, their physical strength) to coerce someone into sexual activity. I don't think we can realistically apply the term "predatory" to the behaviour of young girls: they may well be being manipulative, or taking advantage of the sexual urges of an older man, but that is not remotely the same, either in terms of approach or degree, as an adult manipulating a child into sex.

If an adult is truly to be the victim of a "predatory teenage girl", he has to admit that he was either physically incapable of resisting their advances, or is so emotionally weak as to be unable to prevent himself from participating in sexual activity with her - not an admission that I think most men, even those who have had sex with underage girls, are likely to volunteer.

I am not denying that there will be young girls who, for all kinds of reasons, may put themselves in the way of older men, and even operate manipulatively to initiate sexual activity. That is very different, in my mind, to "preying" on them - those men, ultimately did have a choice in a way that victims of adult predatory sexual offenders do not.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "she looked older" - I have never in my entire life met a teenage girl who looked like anything other than what she was.


working in an offie you would. Plenty of teenage boys who look like men as well. Thats why most places have switched to 'challenge 25'. I.E, you don't look over 25, you'll need ID.

Of course spend longer than a simple shop transactions chat with someone and it would become blindingly obvious in convo quite quickly.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it's just a pity david bowie didn't take your virginity then



taking my virginity? i couldnt give it away!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Wow. Nasty.


why do you find it nasty?


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I was reading a book on led zeppelin over Christmas and that stuff page was at was outrageous . And that bonham guy was a dangerous fucking rapist . A real danger to women.


wasnt there something to do with sharks, groupies and hotels? horrible gross rock start behaviour. utter fuckbubbles (tho zep 3 = awesome!).


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> working in an offie you would. Plenty of teenage boys who look like men as well. Thats why most places have switched to 'challenge 25'. I.E, you don't look over 25, you'll need ID.
> 
> Of course spend longer than a simple shop transactions chat with someone and it would become blindingly obvious in convo quite quickly.


"What is this "Bruce Springsteen" of which you speak, grandad?"


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't buy this, and I find the co-option of the term "predatory" rather unpleasant.



I'm not promoting it. Just saw it and thought it worthy of discussion.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 11, 2016)

malatesta32 said:


> wasnt there something to do with sharks, groupies and hotels? horrible gross rock start behaviour. utter fuckbubbles (tho zep 3 = awesome!).


Most Spinal Tap things to have actually happened


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I'm not promoting it. Just saw it and thought it worthy of discussion.


Maybe I should have been clearer, but my argument was with the article, rather than who posted a link to it.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Maybe I should have been clearer, but my argument was with the article, rather than who posted a link to it.



Yep. I got that.

Just getting in before some gobshite deliberately chooses to read it the wrong way.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> Only sadness that you put it on that thread rather than just starting this one. I absolutely adore Bowie. He's a massive part of my life. That doesn't mean I think this discussion shouldn't be had or that you/one/I can't find that behaviour contemptible. But, yeah. Cheers for doing it there.


Isn't that thread the appropriate place for the discussion? I don't remember talk of James brown's wife beating being banned from his RIP thread, or last week criticism of Lemmy's nazi memorabilia collection on his.

Bowie was a great artist, one of the very greatest. But Whitewashing him isn't right for anyone.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

malatesta32 said:


> wasnt there something to do with sharks, groupies and hotels? horrible gross rock start behaviour. utter fuckbubbles (tho zep 3 = awesome!).



Yup. That depraved bit was also covered .

But the page maddox thing was well sinister . He was a confirmed satanist who obviously took crowleys encouragement to " do ast thou wilt " fully to heart .

And a tax dodger .


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

*Saves this thread for when Bono pops his clogs


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And a tax dodger .



That's a step too far, Shirley? Many of your best friends over many years are tax-dodgers.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you find it nasty?





killer b said:


> Isn't that thread the appropriate place for the discussion? I don't remember talk of James brown's wife beating being banned from his RIP thread, or last week criticism of Lemmy's nazi memorabilia collection on his.
> 
> Bowie was a great artist, one of the very greatest. But Whitewashing him isn't right for anyone.




I don't believe anyone is trying to do a whitewash. It was the timing with Liam's provocative posting. People had barely time to digest the news and then there was this almost gleeful drive by posting - no comment, just an insinuation via some "comedian".

Had Liam started _this_ thread instead, there might be less anger today. IMHO.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

malatesta32 said:


> taking my virginity? i couldnt give it away!


I take my virginity everywhere - but it follows me home.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> *Saves this thread for when Bono pops his clogs



For all the stick Mr Hewton attracts, I've _never_ heard anything of any dodgy sexual shenanigans on his part. Much to the disappointment of many people I know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't believe anyone is trying to do a whitewash. It was the timing with Liam's provocative posting. People had barely time to digest the news and then there was this almost gleeful drive by posting - no comment, just an insinuation via some "comedian".
> 
> Had Liam started _this_ thread instead, there might be less anger today. IMHO.


tbh i'm none the wiser why you've taken offence at that post.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> I don't believe anyone is trying to do a whitewash. It was the timing with Liam's provocative posting. People had barely time to digest the news and then there was this almost gleeful drive by posting - no comment, just an insinuation via some "comedian".
> 
> Had Liam started _this_ thread instead, there might be less anger today. IMHO.


Doubt it. Don't you remember the fistfights over Savile & Peel?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> For all the stick Mr Hewton attracts, I've _never_ heard anything of any dodgy sexual shenanigans on his part. Much to the disappointment of many people I know.


The worst I've heard of is the claim that he and Mrs. Bono have an open relationship.


----------



## Virtual Blue (Jan 11, 2016)

this is the first thread of the year that i am enjoying. 
some great one liners.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Doubt it. Don't you remember the fistfights over Savile & Peel?



Oh god. No and I'm sure I don't want to either.


----------



## cantsin (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> For posterity... from the RIP thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ed got really testy with me on the Tony Benn RIP thread at the time , he seems to takes these things hard, which is fair enough.

Can't say it's nice to see this stuff up here today,  but didnt actually know about it either, and there's deffo a lot hypocrisy / double standards about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh god. No and I'm sure I don't want to either.


saville gate spawned multiple  threads and a steakhouse walk in freezers worth of beef


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> And if the adult isn't aware the other party is a child?
> 
> Did you get proof of age from every one of your sexual partners before you shagged?





8den said:


> Okay can you show me were in that account Bowie was aware she was 15?





8den said:


> But the evidence hasn't been posted here.



Never mind your discriminatory posts about disability elsewhere, if someone that you disagreed with politically (Casually Red for example) came out with comments like this, you would be the first person to accuse them being an apologist for male abuse of sexual power, reminding everyone of it at every opportunity. You're a hypocrite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> And if the adult isn't aware the other party is a child?
> 
> Did you get proof of age from every one of your sexual partners before you shagged?


this begs the question, how many underage partners have you had?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> For all the stick Mr Hewton attracts, I've _never_ heard anything of any dodgy sexual shenanigans on his part. Much to the disappointment of many people I know.


I've heard he's massively into edging 

Urban Dictionary: edging


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> saville gate spawned multiple  threads and a steakhouse walk in freezers worth of beef



So the Civil War had already begun even back then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> So the Civil War had already begun even back then?


you're thinking of the savile row


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The worst I've heard of is the claim that he and Mrs. Bono have an open relationship.


She's left it open for him to leave whenever he likes?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this begs the question, how many underage partners have you had?



While I was also underage? 

Or are you trying to insinuate I'm a paedophile?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this begs the question, how many underage partners have you had?


No, no, no. It _raises _the question, it does not commit the logical fallacy of "begging the question".


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> I've heard he's massively into edging
> 
> Urban Dictionary: edging


Is thon link work safe?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The worst I've heard of is the claim that he and Mrs. Bono have an open relationship.



Really?

I think they should be applauded for that. Got her email address?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is thon link work safe?



i fuckin doubt it! I'll have a look.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> While I was also underage?
> 
> Or are you trying to insinuate I'm a paedophile?



How do you know? Did you ask them?

ETA: I've no idea who you've slept with. My point is that you're argument about Bowie is weak.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Really?
> 
> I think they should be applauded for that. Got her email address?


<sudden mental image of a dead LiamO stretched out on the kitchen lino. his wife standing over him. blood on her hands.>


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Snot that bad. Just some stuff about 'taking it to the edge' and then stopping for a bit.

e2a. my teenage years were filled with this technique. Less as an enhancement of pleasure, more a desperate attempt at something approaching a adequate longevity.


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is thon link work safe?



Depends whether your boss usually reads over your shoulder.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> But the evidence hasn't been posted here.


FFS, give it up.

I thought you were generally alright, tbh. 

Turns out that we find in one day that you're an apologist for child-fuckers as well as people who insult disabled folk.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> While I was also underage?
> 
> Or are you trying to insinuate I'm a paedophile?


you're making a remarkable fuss about this in the post quoted above, i don't know where it leads. i don't know whether you're a paedophile - although i rather doubt it even tho as Spymaster says you have a record of being an apologist for child fuckers.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Never mind your discriminatory posts about disability elsewhere, if someone that you disagreed with politically (Casually Red for example) came out with comments like this, you *would be* the first person to accuse them being an apologist for male abuse of sexual power, reminding everyone of it at every opportunity. You're a hypocrite.



'Would be' and has. Repeatedly.

lower than a snake's ballbag.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is thon link work safe?


I suppose so. He gets called a massive wanker all the time on here and it just confirms that really


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Is thon link work safe?


well mmy talk talk homesafe thing wont let me access it!


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> <sudden mental image of a dead LiamO stretched out on the kitchen lino. his wife standing over him. blood on her hands.>



Idris2002 I'm sure I can say with some degree of certainty that that image and my beloved are no strangers to each other


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> But the evidence hasn't been posted here.



So if you haven't read it, stfu.

Not a lot of the evidence has been posted, no (some has), but a couple of people have already said they don't want to see it so thats not really surprising.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> I suppose so. He gets called a massive wanker all the time on here and it just confirms that really



Who? Bono d'nortsoider or that D4 cockdribble 8den?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

malatesta32 said:


> well mmy talk talk homesafe thing wont let me access it!


Its only an urban dictionary entry


Spoiler: edging






> edging
> Coming nearly close to climax or ejaculation,then purposefully stopping sexual stimulation in order to delay the same, so that the ultimate climax will be more intense. Unlike the other two definitions of "edging" so far included in this dictionary, it is not a practice necessary inclusive of masturbation ("wanking"), but is also practiced amongst homosexual (and, I suppose, heterosexual) partners/couples.
> "As we were edging,every time I got close to cumming, I'd withdraw and wait until immediate passion passed, and he would do the same, until neither of us could tolerate it any longer, and we both shot our loads: mine in his mouth, and his on my abdomen.
> by hot bob February 03, 2008


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> <sudden mental image of a dead LiamO stretched out on the kitchen lino. his wife standing over him. blood on her hands.>



and Spymaster ready to swoop with a sympathetic arm and and an alibi


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> Its only an urban dictionary entry


i know but its very strict - its like a nun on a mary whitehouse trip.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> Its only an urban dictionary entry


surely thats like tantric? like sting does and also Stiffler in those god awful frat boy movies that all wish they were Porky's


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> and Spymaster ready to swoop with a sympathetic arm and and an alibi


I'd happily console Mrs O anytime.

She likes me.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> surely thats like tantric? like sting does and also Stiffler in those god awful frat boy movies that all wish they were Porky's


Yup all massive wankers too but if I have to explain the joke about bono liking Edging then I'm giving up with this place


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 11, 2016)

wrong thread.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> and Spymaster ready to swoop with a sympathetic arm and and an alibi


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'd happily console Mrs O anytime.
> 
> She likes me.



Mebbe we should take this to 'nobbing and sobbing? Tell you what, you broach the idea of swapsies with your better half... and let me know when it's good to go for me to do likewise.

e2a If you are phoning from hospital or a cardboard box under Charring Cross bridge then a quick text will be fine.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 11, 2016)

I slept with a 38 year old when I was 15. I was fully conscious of what happened and I went back for more on several occasions. 

I'm not and never was a victim and the woman was not a perp.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


>




I'm disturbed that you knew where to find that shit at a moment's notice.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

Chip Barm said:


> I slept with a 38 year old when I was 15. I was fully conscious of what happened and I went back for more on several occasions.
> 
> I'm not and never was a victim and the woman was not a perp.



That's fair enough and I don't think anyone's saying that's always wrong. But would you say the same if a 15 year old child you knew told you that a 38 year old got them high and took their virginity? Even if they told you they enjoyed it, would you still not think "Thats a bit fucking suspect"?


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I'm disturbed that you knew where to find that shit at a moment's notice.


It's 3rd on the right on the second shelf of my cd collection


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> saville gate spawned multiple  threads and a steakhouse walk in freezers worth of beef



There's a difference between consensual sex with post pubescent girls - which is what Bowie and Peel did - and the rape of pre pubescent children, which is what Saville did. Both are pretty despicable, but I think there's an obvious qualitative difference and I also think, rightly or wrongly, that Saville's actions were worse. To use the parlance of this thread, I think Saville was a nonce, while I think Bowie and Peel engaged in some awful behaviour that maybe wouldn't be countenanced and hopefully would lead to prosecution now. I think all three should be discussed but I think that the way it was raised on the RIP thread was pretty troll-y and pathetic and calculated to provoke an emotional response.

The Saville gate thread was also qualitatively different. Particular individual experiences were ridiculed and dismissed and we haven't quite reached that kind of nadir yet. Let's hope we don't.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's fair enough and I don't think anyone's saying that's always wrong. But would you say the same if a 15 year old child you knew told you that a 38 year old got them high and took their virginity? Even if they told you they enjoyed it, would you still not think "Thats a bit fucking suspect"?



I think some people are definitely saying that.

I'd been drinking. Some kind of melon liquer if I remember right.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

Anyway. . . someone texted me that she was listening to Bowie and feeling sad because it was the soundtrack of her youth. Did I tell her the awful truth? No, I didn't. But those of us on here should be expected to take it - after all, when we joined Cap'n editor's pirate ship, we signed our articles in blood.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Chip Barm said:


> I slept with a 38 year old when I was 15. I was fully conscious of what happened and I went back for more on several occasions.
> 
> I'm not and never was a victim and the woman was not a perp.



I had a similar experience. Still friends with her now (if only on fb) and I will also always be grateful to her... for the friendship and guidance as much as the sex. 

I think it's different when it's a teenage boy and an older woman. I know some people find that offensive, but IMO you can't really argue the same power relationships exist between boy/woman and girl/man


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyway. . . someone texted me that she was listening to Bowie and feeling sad because it was the soundtrack of her youth. Did I tell her the awful truth? No, I didn't. But those of us on here should be expected to take it - after all, when we joined Cap'n editor's pirate ship, we signed our articles in blood.



We did?  Fuck me, wasn't my blood was it?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> We did?  Fuck me, wasn't my blood was it?


You really need to cut back on the weed, if your memory's that wonky.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyway. . . someone texted me that she was listening to Bowie and feeling sad because it was the soundtrack of her youth. Did I tell her the awful truth? No, I didn't. But those of us on here should be expected to take it - after all, when we joined Cap'n editor's pirate ship, we signed our articles in blood.


Yup. I'm going to give it a couple of weeks before I fess up to not liking Bowie or his music


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

Also, rightly or wrongly, I can still hugely admire Bowie knowing what he did, and shed a tear at his passing, thinking of him as a flawed genius, and feeling disgust at the mores of my childhood/adolescence. That wouldn't happen with someone engaged in rape and/or paedophilia.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

Chip Barm said:


> I think some people are definitely saying that.
> 
> I'd been drinking. Some kind of melon liquer if I remember right.



For me the main question is power. I can accept that a 38 year old and a 15 year old could possibly have a sexual encounter with no uneven power dynamic involved - although I think it would be very unusual. Rock stars and fawning young fans though - that's very, very different. I'm guessing yours didn't take you to a hotel fancier than anything you've ever seen and give you the purest coke you'd ever had in your life. 

Having said all that  - I'm deeply uncomfortable about any 38 year old that wants to sleep with anyone that young, if I'm being really honest.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> You really need to cut back on the weed, if your memory's that wonky.



STOP VICTIM BLAMING


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I had a similar experience. Still friends with her now (if only on fb) and I will also always be grateful to her... for the friendship and guidance as much as the sex.
> 
> I think it's different when it's a teenage boy and an older woman. I know some people find that offensive, but IMO you can't really argue the same power relationships exist between boy/woman and girl/man


Simon and Garfunkel did the soundtrack


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Has anyone called Bowie a serial rapist?
> 
> From what I can tell the point is simply that he (allegedly? - I honestly wasn't aware of these accusations so don't know how substantiated they are) had sex with a 13-year old.


No but I think there were some sweeping generalisations earlier in the thread. I find it quite disturbing that some posters are chucking Saville, Bowie, Peel and Glitter into the same 'bad' box. I don't think that othering or lack of distinction is very helpful. 


Plumdaff said:


> There's a difference between consensual sex with post pubescent girls - which is what Bowie and Peel did - and the rape of pre pubescent children, which is what Saville did. Both are pretty despicable, but I think there's an obvious qualitative difference and I also think, rightly or wrongly, that Saville's actions were worse. To use the parlance of this thread, I think Saville was a nonce, while I think Bowie and Peel engaged in some awful behaviour that maybe wouldn't be countenanced and hopefully would lead to prosecution now. I think all three should be discussed but I think that the way it was raised on the RIP thread was pretty troll-y and pathetic and calculated to provoke an emotional response.
> 
> The Saville gate thread was also qualitatively different. Particular individual experiences were ridiculed and dismissed and we haven't quite reached that kind of nadir yet. Let's hope we don't.



Absolutely. And let's not forget that the age of consent was still 15 in Spain until last year.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Anyway. . . someone texted me that she was listening to Bowie and feeling sad because it was the soundtrack of her youth. Did I tell her the awful truth? No, I didn't. But those of us on here should be expected to take it - after all, when we joined Cap'n editor's pirate ship, we signed our articles in blood.


i stole your facts/credibility line for fb. you got four likes. i think only two people understood it, one of them being ou. of the other two. one might but is hungarian and likes big english words. one is just quite thick.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> For me the main question is power. I can accept that a 38 year old and a 15 year old could possibly have a sexual encounter with no uneven power dynamic involved - although I think it would be very unusual. Rock stars and fawning young fans though - that's very, very different. I'm guessing yours didn't take you to a hotel fancier than anything you've ever seen and give you the purest coke you'd ever had in your life.
> 
> Having said all that  - I'm deeply uncomfortable about any 38 year old that wants to sleep with anyone that young, if I'm being really honest.


I was 17 when I had a knee tremble with Carl Burgess's mum in the rusty caravan outside our house in Runcorn. She was in her mid 40's. Sorry Carl.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> There's a difference between consensual sex with post pubescent girls - which is what Bowie and Peel did - and the rape of pre pubescent children, which is what Saville did. Both are pretty despicable, but I think there's an obvious qualitative difference and I also think, rightly or wrongly, that Saville's actions were worse. To use the parlance of this thread, I think Saville was a nonce, while I think Bowie and Peel engaged in some awful behaviour that maybe wouldn't be countenanced and hopefully would lead to prosecution now.



agree



LiamO said:


> b) I would recognise that how Bowie _et al_ carried was wrong and exploitative but, as has been noted above, it was something that was both widespread and mostly sniggered at at the time. Anybody at the same shite these days would have no such excuses.
> 
> It seems a bit daft to me to project modern-day conventional wisdom onto the actions of people 40/50 years ago.





LiamO said:


> A bit like the way my mum's generation reacted to my generation starting to point out that far too many Priests were predatory nonce-cases.
> 
> _* not calling Bowie this btw. Sexually exploiting (willing, keen even) young teenagers is in a long way down the scale from raping children._



disagree


Plumdaff said:


> I think all three should be discussed but I think that the way it was raised on the RIP thread was pretty troll-y and pathetic and calculated to provoke an emotional response.



Well tbf I disagree with the use of 'troll-y'. Of course I expected a reaction, but so what?

The RIP was the _only_ place IMO to post that video. That's where the sponsored Bowie-love-in was taking place. 

My only mistake was responding to/biting when buffoons like 8den started giving me gyp - something I have refrained from on this thread, which has led to much hilarity when other posters have spanked his shrivelled little bottom for him.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> For me the main question is power. I can accept that a 38 year old and a 15 year old could possibly have a sexual encounter with no uneven power dynamic involved - although I think it would be very unusual. Rock stars and fawning young fans though - that's very, very different. I'm guessing yours didn't take you to a hotel fancier than anything you've ever seen and give you the purest coke you'd ever had in your life.
> 
> Having said all that  - I'm deeply uncomfortable about any 38 year old that wants to sleep with anyone that young, if I'm being really honest.



Despite owning an 'Enjoy Cocaine' t-shirt bought in Loret de Mar I didn't have a clue what the fuck it was...the Midori was enough. I get the point about musicians and the power dynamic but but I don't believe there's anything to be gained but projecting victim status onto someone who doesn't feel like one.

If people really felt like that I think there'd be loads of bands who aren't protected by the status Bowie enjoys up in the dock.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> agree
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Model of fucking restraint. 

It's worth pointing out that nothing I've said is remotely different from what trashy, Guin, or other female posters have said.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No but I think there were some sweeping generalisations earlier in the thread. I find it quite disturbing that some posters are chucking Saville, Bowie, Peel and Glitter into the same 'bad' box. I don't think that othering or lack of distinction is very helpful.





LiamO said:


> 3. Posters who ventured that 'things were different back then' have basically been called apologists for noncery on here. I wonder would any of those who wailed the loudest turn up on either of the Bowie RIP threads with a somewhat more nuanced view?



I think this thread has, for the most part, been free of such broad-stroking.


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO I think you should have started this thread. People, including me, were really upset and wanted to talk about that. Flawed though he is, he was the soundtrack to my life, the absolute number one musical influence on it, someone I've relied on in times of joy and pain my entire life.   It's not covering up to not want someone walking into that accusing everyone of hypocrisy and excusing paedophila.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> The RIP was the _only_ place IMO to post that video. That's where the sponsored Bowie-love-in was taking place.
> 
> My only mistake was responding to/biting when buffoons like 8den started giving me gyp - something I have refrained from on this thread, which has led to much hilarity when other posters have spanked his shrivelled little bottom for him.



So it was a pre-emptive strike? Do you not think your message would have been better served on this thread than that?

And if 8den's posts rankle, what use or relevance is bringing in his postcode to the discussion?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> LiamO I think you should have started this thread. People, including me, were really upset and wanted to talk about that. Flawed though he is, he was the soundtrack to my life, the absolute number one musical influence on it, someone I've relied on in times of joy  It's not covering up to not want someone walking into that accusing everyone of hypocrisy and excusing paedophila.



fairynuff


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Isn't that thread the appropriate place for the discussion? I don't remember talk of James brown's wife beating being banned from his RIP thread, or last week criticism of Lemmy's nazi memorabilia collection on his.
> 
> Bowie was a great artist, one of the very greatest. But Whitewashing him isn't right for anyone.


Who's whitewashing him? This thread is here, isn't it? Where have I shown double standards re James Brown or Lemmy?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> It's worth pointing out that nothing I've said is remotely different from what trashy, Guin, or other female posters have said.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> Who's whitewashing him? This thread is here, isn't it? Where have I shown double standards re James Brown or Lemmy?


You've either got to be in the 'he's a genius and I won't have a word said against him' box or the 'burn the witch' one. Apparently


----------



## 1%er (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No but I think there were some sweeping generalisations earlier in the thread. I find it quite disturbing that some posters are chucking Saville, Bowie, Peel and Glitter into the same 'bad' box. I don't think that othering or lack of distinction is very helpful.
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And let's not forget that the age of consent was still 15 in Spain until last year.


Are you sure it was 15 I thought it was 13 until changed in 2015


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> To use the parlance of this thread, I think Saville was a nonce, while I think Bowie and Peel engaged in some awful behaviour that maybe wouldn't be countenanced and hopefully would lead to prosecution now



not to derail with pedantry but nonce originally referred to sex criminal of any stripe, and I tend to use it in that context. I realise today most people use it to mean padophilia rather than sex with a post pubescent underage person. Was within a whisker of calling danczuk a nonce the other day but he isn't.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> Who's whitewashing him? This thread is here, isn't it? Where have I shown double standards re James Brown or Lemmy?


It is here, but I don't know why it's necessary - there's a perfectly good RIP thread where we could discuss all aspects of David Bowie. Except it's been banned.

I wasn't saying you were exhibiting double standards. Just that no-one complained it was too early or lacking in respect or whatever on those threads when people brought up stuff that wasn't bland RIPs or a heartfelt eulogy about what their music meant to them as a teenager.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

1%er said:


> Are you sure it was 15 I thought it was 13 until changed in 2015


Aargh - sorry yes, that was a typo. And was the whole point


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> You've either got to be in the 'he's a genius and I won't have a word said against him' box or the 'burn the witch' one. Apparently


I don't think you do.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

friedaweed said:


> I was 17 when I had a knee tremble with Carl Burgess's mum in the rusty caravan outside our house in Runcorn. She was in her mid 40's. Sorry Carl.



Carlos 007

you are in soooo much trouble now friedaweed


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> I don't think you do.



nor me. Nor most posters on this thread.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> I don't think you do.


I agree


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> It is here, but I don't know why it's necessary - there's a perfectly good RIP thread where we could discuss all aspects of David Bowie. Except it's been banned.
> 
> I wasn't saying you were exhibiting double standards. Just that no-one complained it was too early or lacking in respect or whatever on those threads when people brought up stuff that wasn't bland RIPs or a heartfelt eulogy about what their music meant to them as a teenager.


I think quibbling about which thread it's on is stupid, if you're not someone who is grieving today. It's being discussed. That's good. Boo fucking hoo that people don't want you to on that particular thread. Presumably you can see why, if you are grieving, that the other thread would not feel like the right place for it.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

sound and vision is a great tune.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> I think quibbling about which thread it's on is stupid, if you're not someone who is grieving today. It's being discussed. That's good. Boo fucking hoo that people don't want you to on that particular thread. Presumably you can see why, if you are grieving, that the other thread would not feel like the right place for it.


I cried this morning when I heard the news. I don't think that means I need to be shielded from some less comfortable aspects of DB's behaviour.


----------



## 1%er (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Aargh - sorry yes, that was a typo. And was the whole point


The "age of consent" varies from 14 to 17 in Europe, but I'm not really sure that some here today, gone tomorrow politicians putting  some arbitrary age really means much.

Edit to add, For Austria, Germany, Portugal and Italy it is *14*, and in France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Greece it is 15. Spain did have one of the lowest ages of consent on the continent at just *13*, but recently agreed to raise this to *16*.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> sound and vision is a great tune.


Chris Hadfield up on the ISS murdered Space Oddity, but got away with because he lives in space and was literally sitting in a tin can far above the world so it works


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> And let's not forget that the age of consent was still 15 in Spain until last year.


13. Prior to 1999 it was 12.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I cried this morning when I heard the news. I don't think that means I need to be shielded from some less comfortable aspects of DB's behaviour.


In what way are you being shielded? This thread is here. Is it hidden away in a secret forum to protect sensitive souls? Do you seriously not understand the desire to have somewhere _just_ to be sad that someone has died?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> Chris Hadfield up on the ISS murdered Space Oddity, but got away with because he lives in space and was literally sitting in a tin can far above the world so it works


it worked very well, despite him having a tache and coming from canada.
what do we get? some prick named tim who can't even make a phonecall and get it right.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> it worked very well, despite him having a tache and coming from canada.



So Idris2002 is an astronaut. Wow.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> In what way are you being shielded? This thread is here. Is it hidden away in a secret forum to protect sensitive souls? Do you seriously not understand the desire to have somewhere _just_ to be sad that someone has died?


I can understand the desire for that. I can also understand why others might desire to have a more rounded discussion, without being threatened with a banning.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> So Idris2002 is an astronaut. Wow.


I'm more of a space cadet, tbh.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I had a similar experience. Still friends with her now (if only on fb) and I will also always be grateful to her... for the friendship and guidance as much as the sex.
> 
> I think it's different when it's a teenage boy and an older woman. I know some people find that offensive, but IMO you can't really argue the same power relationships exist between boy/woman and girl/man


I think there are often differences, but not always. The problem is working out when the differences are a problem.

One major issue is that, while the idea that every teenage boy would happily screw anyone prevails, those teenage boys who were manipulated into sex with a much older woman and suffered the emotional consequences will be marginalised and given to feel that the residual feelings they have are not valid, because they "ought" to be feeling cocky and proud, not used.

It sounds as if your experience was about a great deal more than simply being used for sex - even if it was technically as illegal as anything Bowie is being accused of - but it's worth pointing out, if it needs to be, that you may have been fortunate. And, given the attitudes of most teenage boys to matters sexual, it was probably more luck than judgement... I don't mean that as any comment on you, specifically, though.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> 13. Prior to 1999 it was 12.



It was 13 until last year.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I can understand the desire for that. I can also understand why others might desire to have a more rounded discussion, without being threatened with a banning.


Yep. Poor you. Nowhere to have your voice heard.

Anyway, this (our part of this thread) is bollocks, so I won't post any more about it.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No but I think there were some sweeping generalisations earlier in the thread. I find it quite disturbing that some posters are chucking Saville, Bowie, Peel and Glitter into the same 'bad' box. I don't think that othering or lack of distinction is very helpful.
> .



Of course. Bowie and Peel were cool and that makes them totally different.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 11, 2016)

Favelado said:


> It was 13 until last year.


I know.


----------



## 1%er (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> 13. Prior to 1999 it was 12.


I wonder why people think the countries with higher or lower ages are wrong just because their politicians say 16  They are called children on this thread about sex but are labeled young adults on threads about the voting age


----------



## Favelado (Jan 11, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I know.



Yeah. Sorry.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

So to be clear LiamO had exactly the same experience as Maddox on that they were both underage and both had sex with an older sexual partner	  While underage, and both remember that relationship fondly and both agree that the sex was consensual. 


But LiamO thinks it was different because he was a boy a Maddox a girl. 


And yet LiamO started a thread vilifying Bowie?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Of course. Bowie and Peel were cool and that makes them totally different.


They had sex with young women under the age of consent in that country at that time. They didn't rape and sexually assault children without consent.

ETA: do you really not see a difference?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I'm more of a space cadet, tbh.


sky pilot


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

few more post till this one takes over the RIP thread.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They had sex with young women under the age of consent in that country at that time.


Isn't sex under the age of consent referred to as statutory rape?


> They didn't rape and sexually assault children without consent.


Children under the age of consent can't give consent - that's kind of the whole point.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> sky pilot


Angels one five


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> And yet LiamO started a thread vilifying Bowie?


I think the discussion Liam is seeking is more nuanced than that tbf.


----------



## Patteran (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> In fairness, my point is not so much that 'Bowie's (and lots of others) behaviour was completely disgusting and shouldn't just be whitewashed out.' but...
> 
> a) The blatant hypocrisy in how we view what they did. If we like or admire a person's work there is a tendency to focus on their achievements/canon of work rather than their sexual shortcomings. If we _don't _like them then we focus on their sexual proclivities and ignore their work.
> 
> ...



I agree, Liam, there is a double standard. Fact is, over on Facebook, i've been mitigating his flirtation with fascism in a discussion with some of our old comrades - something I wouldn't have done for Jim Davidson, or a Tory MP, or a singer I hadn't loved since my early teens. And when it's someone less dear to me, Queen for example, I'm the first to sneer 'Sun City cunts'. Maybe it's because we saw the end of the story - when i got into Ziggy in the early 80s, Bowie was a cool older dude in a suit with a band of mixed ethnicity, wearing a haircut that every lad at the football copied. Then he was an even older dude in a polo neck with a beautiful grown-up Somalian wife. He wasn't a noncey old nazi - the story didn't end that way. Course of least resistance - a little hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance is simpler than cutting something joyful out of our cultural lives. I saw him live, once - Maine Road, 87ish, Glass Spider Tour. He was shit. That didn't matter, either, didn't affect the relationship I'd developed with him. He was Bowie, & he was ace.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Isn't sex under the age of consent referred to as statutory rape?
> 
> Children under the age of consent can't give consent - that's kind of the whole point.


No it isn't. There's no such offence as statutory rape. 

It's arbitrary (the age of consent).


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Isn't sex under the age of consent referred to as statutory rape?
> 
> Children under the age of consent can't give consent - that's kind of the whole point.


"Statutory rape" is not a term that is used in UK law: I have a feeling it originates from the US.

But - as you say - given that in the UK someone under 13 is not deemed capable of legally giving consent, sexual activity with them is by definition non-consensual, so penetrative sex is rape.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> It's arbitrary (the age of consent).


Not from the point of view of the law.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> "Statutory rape" is not a term that is used in UK law: I have a feeling it originates from the US.


Relevant bit of Wikipedia (since the CPS one was less readable):

Statutory rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Not from the point of view of the law.


But it's arbitrary insomuch as it's a made up age which is determined by social mores.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 11, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> That said; you rarely hear MJs "PYT"


there were loads of songs from say the 50s onwards that actively expressed sexual fantasies around young women, pondering 'are you sixteen?' and so on. There was a definite fetishisation over teenage girls that seems to be have been a cultural meme even...and it was reinforced by men across the media, on tv, in the papers, and the less said about djs the better. 

Whats upsetting to me about older men sleeping with young teenagers is the more than likely power imbalance - which suggests a degree of coercision and taking advantage, but also that the older man is getting a power trip from the whole experience. The power tripping also feeds into the way men were talking about it in the media - men ran the media in those days in a way they don't exclusively do so as much now. I'd like to think that sexual power tripping culture amongst men has changed somewhat since then, not just acting differently because it would be disapproved to sleep with young teens.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Relevant bit of Wikipedia (since the CPS one was less readable):
> 
> Statutory rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All of the examples on that page that are cited as "statutory rape" refer to the United States. The section on UK law does not mention it once.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think the discussion Liam is seeking is more nuanced than that tbf.



I think If that's what LiamO wants he's gone about it completely the wrong way. 

Post that Video on an RIP thread was fucking moronic


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> All of the examples on that page that are cited as "statutory rape" refer to the United States. The section on UK law does not mention it once.


Yes, I was agreeing with you.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Relevant bit of Wikipedia (since the CPS one was less readable):
> 
> Statutory rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That's called 'sexual activity with a child' if you read that wiki properly. There is no such offence as statutory rape in the UK.

ETA: cross-posted


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> I think If that's what LiamO wants he's gone about it completely the wrong way.
> 
> Post that Video on an RIP thread was fucking moronic


He's been totally transparent on this thread - including in the OP - what his position is. Haven't you read it?


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> That's called 'sexual activity with a child' if you read that wiki properly. There is no such offence as statutory rape in the UK.
> 
> ETA: cross-posted


I can read fine, thanks for the condescending comment though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> But it's arbitrary insomuch as it's a made up age which is determined by social mores.



Attempts to agree on a legal definition of the age of consent may be arbitrary but the concept of an age of consent is anything but arbitrary.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> I think the discussion Liam is seeking is more nuanced than that tbf.


come on, it's Liam.  The cunt just wants a fight


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> He's been totally transparent on this thread - including in the OP - what his position is. Haven't you read it?



Yes. 

The comparison with Chaplin is particularly egregious. Chaplin pursued and groomed under aged women his entire life.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Attempts to agree on a legal definition of the age of consent may be arbitrary but the concept of an age of consent is anything but arbitrary.


the concept is rather worthless with a specific definition tho, isn't it?


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

belboid said:


> come on, it's Liam.  The cunt just wants a fight


Well, we all like a fight. Doesn't mean there's nothing in it, and if you're going to enter the fray it's probably best at least reading what you're fighting against.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Attempts to agree on a legal definition of the age of consent may be arbitrary but the concept of an age of consent is anything but arbitrary.



Surely it's rather the other way round? The concept that there is 'an' age of consent is what's arbitrary. The legal definition has to be fixed _somewhere_, by definition.  There are then valid questions about the validity of where it's been fixed but better to have one than not - again, in terms of the law at least. I don't think the law (generally speaking) then pretends that that's the scientifically determined be-all-and-end-all age before which everything is evil and after which everything is fine. Some notion of degree is recognised in sentencing, for example.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Well, we all like a fight. Doesn't mean there's nothing in it, and if you're going to enter the fray it's probably best at least reading what you're fighting against.


and who with.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> there were loads of songs from say the 50s onwards that actively expressed sexual fantasies around young women, pondering 'are you sixteen?' and so on. There was a definite fetishisation over teenage girls that seems to be have been a cultural meme even...and it was reinforced by men across the media, on tv, in the papers, and the less said about djs the better.
> 
> Whats upsetting to me about older men sleeping with young teenagers is the more than likely power imbalance - which suggests a degree of coercision and taking advantage, but also that the older man is getting a power trip from the whole experience. The power tripping also feeds into the way men were talking about it in the media - men ran the media in those days in a way they don't exclusively do so as much now. I'd like to think that sexual power tripping culture amongst men has changed somewhat since then, not just acting differently because it would be disapproved to sleep with young teens.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

belboid said:


> the concept is rather worthless with a specific definition tho, isn't it?



Of course - I was responding to what sounded like the suggestion that because its difficult to define the exact age then the whole notion of statutory rape/sex without consent/whatever should be done away with. You can argue the toss either way about whether the age of consent should be anything between 14 and 18 I think, but its ridiculous to do away with the notion altogether which is what trashpony seems to be getting at.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2016)

Is there any other testimony to Bowie's noncery besides Lori Maddox - who, it should be remembered, has made a fair amount of money from selling "I was a groupie"/"I was an under-age groupie" reminiscences.
I am not, by the way, challenging her claim that Bowie took her virginity, merely pointing out that this is another in a line of reminiscences.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

'confessions of a pop performer' is worse for that kind of stuff - full of nudge nudge (and worse) stuff about young girls.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Hitler took too much speed, so I guess we should give him an easy ride while we're at it.



Give him some amyl nitrate, more like!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'confessions of a pop performer' is worse for that kind of stuff - full of nudge nudge (and worse) stuff about young girls.



Never saw the appeal of either the books or the films. Benny Hill with added tits and sleaze.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> 'confessions of a pop performer' is worse for that kind of stuff - full of nudge nudge (and worse) stuff about young girls.



Have a memory of the window cleaner one where he's doing the six from all girls school windows?


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> Well, we all like a fight. Doesn't mean there's nothing in it, and if you're going to enter the fray it's probably best at least reading what you're fighting against.


I did.  It struck me as disingenuous guff, to be very generous.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is there any other testimony to Bowie's noncery besides Lori Maddox - who, it should be remembered, has made a fair amount of money from selling "I was a groupie"/"I was an under-age groupie" reminiscences.
> I am not, by the way, challenging her claim that Bowie took her virginity, merely pointing out that this is another in a line of reminiscences.



It's worth pointing out that the only account of Bowie having sex with an underage girl is Maddox (and also that I've read a few reports of Bowie berating Band mates for bringing underage fans back to the hotel) and Maddox account makes no reference that Bowie knew she was underage and furthermore she views the incident in a positive moment in her life.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> You've either got to be in the 'he's a genius and I won't have a word said against him' box or the 'burn the witch' one. Apparently



Which when you consider that people *want* their idols to have feet of clay - because it humanises them, and makes the worshippers think "that could be me!" - is pretty strange.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2016)

Mation said:


> I don't think you do.



I'm somewhere in the middle. I see Bowie as a great artist, but *if* he fucked a child knowing that she was a child - or even suspecting - then that's reprehensible. It doesn't, however, change the fact of his art, it merely changes how different individuals will go on to view that art.


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Never saw the appeal of either the books or the films. Benny Hill with added tits and sleaze.


They were fucking terrible films in terms of content and artistic merit.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Of course - I was responding to what sounded like the suggestion that because its difficult to define the exact age then the whole notion of statutory rape/sex without consent/whatever should be done away with. You can argue the toss either way about whether the age of consent should be anything between 14 and 18 I think, but its ridiculous to do away with the notion altogether which is what trashpony seems to be getting at.


Eh? How the fuck did you come to that conclusion? 

I think I'll leave you men to huff and puff among yourselves.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Good idea I'm out...


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

nino_savatte said:


> They were fucking terrible films in terms of content and artistic merit.


I was too young when they came out to even be particularly bothered about seeing them, but I'd always had it at the back of my mind that they were likely to be no more than a soft porn sleazefest, and never thought about it. Perhaps I should torrent one, just to see how far off the mark my judgemental preconceptions were 

ETA: having looked at the Wikipedia write-up, I think I'll find something more useful to do with an hour and a half.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> there were loads of songs from say the 50s onwards that actively expressed sexual fantasies around young women, pondering 'are you sixteen?' and so on. There was a definite fetishisation over teenage girls that seems to be have been a cultural meme even...and it was reinforced by men across the media, on tv, in the papers, and the less said about djs the better.
> 
> Whats upsetting to me about older men sleeping with young teenagers is the more than likely power imbalance - which suggests a degree of coercision and taking advantage, but also that the older man is getting a power trip from the whole experience. The power tripping also feeds into the way men were talking about it in the media - men ran the media in those days in a way they don't exclusively do so as much now. I'd like to think that sexual power tripping culture amongst men has changed somewhat since then, not just acting differently because it would be disapproved to sleep with young teens.






> Happy birthday sweet sixteen
> Tonight's the night I've waited for
> Because you're not a baby anymore
> You've turned into the prettiest girl I've ever seen
> ...




neil sedaka, happy birthday, sweet sixteen


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I was too young when they came out to even be particularly bothered about seeing them, but I'd always had it at the back of my mind that they were likely to be no more than a soft porn sleazefest, and never thought about it. Perhaps I should torrent one, just to see how far off the mark my judgemental preconceptions were


It was the closest we ever got to soft porn in this country... well, there was that awful film _The Stud_ with Joan Collins and Oliver Tobias.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> there were loads of songs from say the 50s onwards that actively expressed sexual fantasies around young women, pondering 'are you sixteen?' and so on. There was a definite fetishisation over teenage girls that seems to be have been a cultural meme even...and it was reinforced by men across the media, on tv, in the papers, and the less said about djs the better.
> 
> Whats upsetting to me about older men sleeping with young teenagers is the more than likely power imbalance - which suggests a degree of coercision and taking advantage, but also that the older man is getting a power trip from the whole experience. The power tripping also feeds into the way men were talking about it in the media - men ran the media in those days in a way they don't exclusively do so as much now. I'd like to think that sexual power tripping culture amongst men has changed somewhat since then, not just acting differently because it would be disapproved to sleep with young teens.



Plenty of the latter in your second paragraph in the rave scene, some of the older men, especially the promoters,etc thought they were Gods.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2016)

treelover said:


> neil sedaka, happy birthday, sweet sixteen


B Side - 'Dont Lead Me On'

hmmm


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

treelover said:


> neil sedaka, happy birthday, sweet sixteen


Even as a 1970s kid, I knew there was something dubious about that song...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is there any other testimony to Bowie's noncery besides Lori Maddox - who, it should be remembered, has made a fair amount of money from selling "I was a groupie"/"I was an under-age groupie" reminiscences.
> I am not, by the way, challenging her claim that Bowie took her virginity, merely pointing out that this is another in a line of reminiscences.


fwiw, her account has her first meeting him aged 13 then having sex with him aged 14 a few months later. Then many times after that over the next 10 years. So he'd have been mid-20s, she 14, at their first sexual encounter. 

My problem here is the nonce/not-nonce binary. I think it's clearly more complicated than that. Bowie wasn't Jimmy Savile.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bowie wasn't Jimmy Savile.


Yup you are right but it did look like him and Garry Glitter shared the same tailor at least.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

I wonder if there are other sites discussing this side of DB on social media, etc?


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

You're as capable of searching twitter as any of us, i expect. The answer is 'yes', of course.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jan 11, 2016)

treelover said:


> neil sedaka, happy birthday, sweet sixteen



Billy Idol - Sweet Sixteen
Finbar Furey - When You Were Sweet Sixteen


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> It's worth pointing out that the only account of Bowie having sex with an underage girl is Maddox (and also that I've read a few reports of Bowie berating Band mates for bringing underage fans back to the hotel) and Maddox account makes no reference that Bowie knew she was underage and furthermore she views the incident in a positive moment in her life.


This whole might not have known she was 14/do you ask sexual partners for ID and given that teenagers can look older - if you guessed you'd picked up a 16, 17, 18 year old girl in a club, wouldn't you double check that she wasn't underage?


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

Fwiw I knew a _lot _of Bowie fans who'd spend a lot of time following him about, waiting at backstage doors and around his hotels, hoping for sighting or more. I did this from mid-late 80s from the age of 16 for ~10 years. I wasn't the youngest and there were many who were older than me who'd been doing it since the early 70s.

There were precisely no stories of him fucking young 'groupies'. Several of him 'getting off with' people's mothers or their mother's friends. It was really disappointing.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> This whole might not have known she was 14/do you ask sexual partners for ID and given that teenagers can look older - if you guessed you'd picked up a 16, 17, 18 year old girl in a club, wouldn't you double check that she wasn't underage?


Bingenheimer was a nasty little man, who made sure a 'certain type of girl' attended his club.  He certainly knew how old they were, even if he didn't tell his famous chums.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

That woman's probably lying then.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

incredible stuff.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> This whole might not have known she was 14/do you ask sexual partners for ID and given that teenagers can look older - if you guessed you'd picked up a 16, 17, 18 year old girl in a club, wouldn't you double check that she wasn't underage?


How? The only way would be to steer clear altogether. (Which wouldn't be a bad approach.)


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 11, 2016)

belboid said:


> Bingenhemier was a nasty little man, who made sure a 'certain type of girl' attended his club.  He certainly knew how old they were, even if he didn't tell his famous chums.


In his memoirs Mick Farren says that the only reason the towels were clean in Bingenheimer's place was that he couldn't get a mob connection for linen.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> That woman's probably lying then.


No, not at all. I'm sure she was telling the truth. But in the UK at that time there weren't any stories of it, so I don't think it was his MO. Doesn't make it better, its just information.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Even as a 1970s kid, I knew there was something dubious about that song...



...and the Ringo Starr one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_Sixteen


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 11, 2016)

Has anyone mentioned the cover to the Blind Faith album yet?  That normally gets an airing on these threads.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> And if the adult isn't aware the other party is a child?
> 
> Did you get proof of age from every one of your sexual partners before you shagged?



If you need proof that someone is above the age of consent then you should not be even thinking about sex with them.
Some of the stuff on here is disturbing tbh.
We are not talking about a 16 or 17 yr old having sex with a 15 year old. Bowie was 30 in 1977...there is no way a 13 yr old, 14 year old or 15 yr old comes across as being an adult.
you only have to talk to them to realise that they are not an adult.
The fact that these things happened in the 1970s is no excuse...people knew then that it was wrong.

I know nothing about Bowie other than the Rock against Racism stuff regarding him and Clapton...he attempted to make amends for his support/flirtation of fascism so think on that score you can argue he deserves the benefit of the doubt as he changed.
I get how people can therefore defend him on this issue.

But those minimising sex with under aged children are fucking outrageous...
it doesn't matter if he claimed to not know their ages... he fucking should have,
it doesn't matter if it was a long time ago
it doesn't matter if they were throwing themselves at him
it doesn't matter if you do not consider it to be in the category as a serial rapist
It doesn't matter if you don't think sex with under age children is the same as paedophilia


What matters is that NO ONE SHOULD HAVE SEX WITH UNDER AGED CHILDREN..End of story.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> This whole might not have known she was 14/do you ask sexual partners for ID and given that teenagers can look older - if you guessed you'd picked up a 16, 17, 18 year old girl in a club, wouldn't you double check that she wasn't underage?



Count the tree rings while your down there like?

Short of Mations "Steer Clear" you can't particularly check, especially not pre-internet days.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2016)

It's weird how 70s rock stars seem to get a free pass on sexually exploiting children/teenagers, yet TV stars and DJs of the 70s are (rightly) pursued and exposed by the likes of Operation Yewtree and the media. 
Why is that? 
I liked Bowie's music and will be listening to some of it tonight but think this whitewashing/hagiography of Bowie on the other thread is rather disturbing. Celebrate his life by all means, but accept him warts and all, like we did with Lemmy very recently.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> This whole might not have known she was 14/do you ask sexual partners for ID and given that teenagers can look older - if you guessed you'd picked up a 16, 17, 18 year old girl in a club, wouldn't you double check that she wasn't underage?


Not that the matter would be likely to be an issue, given that I think if I were picking up women in clubs today, my target age group would start at about twice that age, but...I think if I were dubious enough to be wondering about ID, I'd probably pass anyway.

I suppose it's a bit of an argument for not leaping into bed too quickly - if you're going from meeting to sex too fast to form a reasonable idea of how old she is, then maybe you're going too fast...

I probably wouldn't have said that when I was 21, though


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's weird how 70s rock stars seem to get a free pass on sexually exploiting children/teenagers, yet TV stars and DJs of the 70s are (rightly) pursued and exposed by the likes of Operation Yewtree and the media.
> Why is that?
> I liked Bowie's music and will be listening to some of it tonight but think this whitewashing/hagiography of Bowie on the other thread is rather disturbing. Celebrate his life by all means, but accept him warts and all, like we did with Lemmy very recently.


There surely is a difference between raping and assaulting teens and having consensual underage sex?  Bowie, John Peel, Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page etc - an abuse of power and pretty grim but not the same as rape.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> There surely is a difference between raping and assaulting teens and having consensual underage sex?  Bowie, John Peel, Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page etc - an abuse of power and pretty grim but not the same as rape.


Sure, though that does sound alarmingly like Whoopy Goldberg's 'that's not rape rape' comments about Roman Polanski's exploits.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Sure, though that does sound alarmingly like Whoopy Goldberg's 'that's not rape rape' comments about Roman Polanski's exploits.


Unless you think teenage girls are not capable of consenting to sex I'm not sure how it is rape.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Sure, though that does sound alarmingly like Whoopy Goldberg's 'that's not rape rape' comments about Roman Polanski's exploits.


What Bowie is said to have done bears no comparison to what Polanski has admitted to. And I think the subsequent reactions of the girls involved - one treating it as a fond memory, the other seriously scarred by it - show that.


----------



## Mation (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Unless you think teenage girls are not capable of consenting to sex I'm not sure how it is rape.


Did you mean when both parties are underage or statutory rape?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What Bowie is said to have done bears no comparison to what Polanski has admitted to. And I think the subsequent reactions of the girls involved - one treating it as a fond memory, the other seriously scarred by it - show that.


bowie never considered how it would turn out, i bet.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Unless you think teenage girls are not capable of consenting to sex I'm not sure how it is rape.


These girls and boys ('groupies') were passed around like currency. They were often intoxicated. I'm not sure if an intoxicated teen under the age of consent could be regarded as being capable of consent, no.
Yes, the rock stars were also often intoxicated too, but they were over the age of consent.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

discokermit said:


> bowie never considered how it would turn out, i bet.


No, and I suppose he is fortunate (although it's a moot point now) if his encounter has resulted in fond memories, though perhaps he went about it in such a way as to make that more likely.

Which doesn't excuse underage sex, but at least mitigates some of the consequences.

I think reducing the whole issue of underage sex to a simplistic binary moral viewpoint misses a lot of the issues. Legally, it _is_ a binary viewpoint, but I think we all know that the law is a blunt instrument that does not usually reflect the subtleties and nuances of real-life situations. It's like that for a reason, and if the question was one of legal guilt, those criteria are fine. But, in a discussion about the moral implications of such encounters, merely invoking the law is not terribly helpful.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

edited didn't read post I was replying to properly.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 11, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's weird how 70s rock stars seem to get a free pass on sexually exploiting children/teenagers, yet TV stars and DJs of the 70s are (rightly) pursued and exposed by the likes of Operation Yewtree and the media.
> Why is that?
> I liked Bowie's music and will be listening to some of it tonight but think this whitewashing/hagiography of Bowie on the other thread is rather disturbing. Celebrate his life by all means, but accept him warts and all, like we did with Lemmy very recently.



This, more or less sums-up how I see things as well.

I'm wondering if the difference between rock stars of the period and the likes of Saville/"personalities" etc is more like the latter to a very great deal used their celebrety and "talent" very specifically to facilitate their abuse of children, whilst for many rock stars, whilst they may have done reprehensible things, it was more secondary to their talent/art/skill?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

pogofish said:


> This, more or less sums-up how I see things as well.
> 
> I'm wondering if the difference between rock stars of the period and the likes of Saville/"personalities" etc is more like the latter to a very great deal used their celebrety and "talent" very specifically to facilitate their abuse of children, whilst for many rock stars, whilst they may have done reprehensible things, it was more secondary to their talent/art/skill?


Insofar as it's any kind of mitigation, the latter were probably opportunists, while the likes of Savile went to considerable lengths to procure and abuse their victims.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2016)

As to how you should judge popstars who have underage sex - even _important_ popstars (which Bowie undoubtedly was) - well, you judge them like any other person who has underage sex. Full stop. For if you _don't_ judge them the same, what are you doing?  What sort of mental/emotional calculus are you engaged in?

I'm not going to somehow pretend his music wasn't important - it was, it was vastly important (ditto Peel and Page).  But knowing about their abusive behaviour means I'm not able to join in the tributes, I just can't do that - that's where I draw my line. In terms of Polanski, I'd go further, a lot further, I'll never watch one of his films.  Whether people feel able to join in unambiguous RIP threads is up to them - really - but for me it always clouds their work.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Insofar as it's any kind of mitigation, the latter were probably opportunists, while the likes of Savile went to considerable lengths to procure and abuse their victims.



Its also at the back of my mind that many rock stars of the 70s had risen through the music biz of the 1960s, which in itself could be quite abusive/exploitative to its artists - and some were not exactly "whole people" to begin with.  Abuse does tend to beget more abuse.  

Although I don't know how true this might have been in Bowie's case?  He does strike me as someone who was always in greater control of his life/career than many of his contemporaries - there are probaly those who know his story better who could shed some light?


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> For me the main question is power. I can accept that a 38 year old and a 15 year old could possibly have a sexual encounter with no uneven power dynamic involved - although I think it would be very unusual. Rock stars and fawning young fans though - that's very, very different. I'm guessing yours didn't take you to a hotel fancier than anything you've ever seen and give you the purest coke you'd ever had in your life.
> 
> Having said all that  - I'm deeply uncomfortable about any 38 year old that wants to sleep with anyone that young, if I'm being really honest.



I had sex with an at the time up and coming rock star who went on to become a bit of a superstar 2 weeks after my 16th birthday. Was there ever any question of me being underage? Nope. I was obviously young but how young was clearly never considered by him. Would the same thing have happened if the gig had been a month earlier? If I had anything to do with it damn right it would have. Was I coerced? Hell no. Was I swayed by the fact he fronted a band? Hell yes, of course. Were drugs and alcohol involved? Errr... yes.
I dunno where I'm going with this really. I suppose I was taken advantage of but I don't think I was in anyway damaged by it. I suppose he should have known better but I wasn't behind the door in coming forward myself. I guess there is a very, very blurry line somewhere...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I guess there is a very, very blurry line somewhere...


I look at it like this. The line is blurry. Life's messy sometimes.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I look at it like this. The line is blurry. Life's messy sometimes.



Surely that's exactly why there's a very clear line laid down by the law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Surely that's exactly why there's a very clear line laid down by the law.


What are we talking about here, though? Whether people have broken the law or not, or the extent to which what they did might have been wrong? 

The first is a simple yes/no binary. The second isn't. 

Bowie broke British law at the time every time he fucked a man under 21 or when he was himself under 21, btw. 'It's against the law' isn't always ample justification for condemning an action.


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> These girls and boys ('groupies') were passed around like currency. They were often intoxicated. I'm not sure if an intoxicated teen under the age of consent could be regarded as being capable of consent, no.
> Yes, the rock stars were also often intoxicated too, but they were over the age of consent.




David Cassidy, the women were 'stripped for action', described as  'canned goods'

Unbelieveable really.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 11, 2016)

Being a rock star you're not exactly short of choice, so if you are choosing the underage girl out of all others, you have to wonder why. Is it because it's wrong that makes it so tempting? Being able to get what you want when you want leads to needing some new kind of challenge? We're all these stars competing to get the youngest one? "Oh guess what I did last night, aren't I terrible!"

As someone upthread said, teenage girls may be able to look a bit older than they are, but talking to them, IME, it's easy to work out that they are not, especially if you have 15+ years on them. The immaturity shines through.


----------



## dessiato (Jan 11, 2016)

Buddy Bradley said:


> I find the differences in the age of consent across countries interesting. Do you think if we were all Spanish (where it's 13, iirc) we would be quite so ERMAGHERD RAPE about it?


It's 16 in Spain. In Austria, Germany,  Portugal and Italy it's 14. Having lived in Portugal and Spain people would be horrified if an older man was having sex with a much younger girl. It is only "acceptable" to have sex with a young girl if you are also young. The age difference is what's important. A 14 yr old with a 14 - 16 yr old is acceptable, with a 20+ it is a problem.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 11, 2016)

dessiato said:


> It's 16 in Spain. In Austria, Germany,  Portugal and Italy it's 14. Having lived in Portugal and Spain people would be horrified if an older man was having sex with a much younger girl. It is only "acceptable" to have sex with a young girl if you are also young. The age difference is what's important. A 14 yr old with a 14 - 16 yr old is acceptable, with a 20+ it is a problem.




Yup. It's basic common sense really.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 11, 2016)

deadringer said:


> As someone upthread said, teenage girls may be able to look a bit older than they are, but talking to them, IME, it's easy to work out that they are not, especially if you have 15+ years on them. The immaturity shines through.



If my experience was anything to go by talking didn't really come into the equation very much.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

Just read this on facebook, no idea if true, might read up more on it later.

Lori Mattix was born in 1958. Bowie's first tour of America was in 72-73, it's easy to look that up. She also states she met Page in 73' while Zeppelin were touring 'Houses of the Holy (released in 73).. I hate to be cynical, but as Mattix has got older the age she met those guys has got lower. But the years don't change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

dessiato said:


> It's 16 in Spain. In Austria, Germany,  Portugal and Italy it's 14. Having lived in Portugal and Spain people would be horrified if an older man was having sex with a much younger girl. It is only "acceptable" to have sex with a young girl if you are also young. The age difference is what's important. A 14 yr old with a 14 - 16 yr old is acceptable, with a 20+ it is a problem.


I think it's a very hard thing to make laws about, tbh. Here we have 16, but in practice, it's not really treated like that - a 16-17 year old is never going to be prosecuted for sex with a 14-15 year old. So even if there's a clear line in theory, in practice, there isn't, those upholding the law put a fuzziness on it.

Holland's probably came closest to legislating for what actually happens in the real world by legalising sex as young as 12 in some circumstances. Holland has extremely low rates of teenage pregnancy, too. Practical legislation can help produce results.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Just read this on facebook, no idea if true, might read up more on it later.
> 
> Lori Mattix was born in 1958. Bowie's first tour of America was in 72-73, it's easy to look that up. She also states she met Page in 73' while Zeppelin were touring 'Houses of the Holy (released in 73).. I hate to be cynical, but as Mattix has got older the age she met those guys has got lower. But the years don't change.


I looked it up earlier. Her story with Bowie is perfectly plausible. First met him in 72, had sex with him in 73. Not sure there's too much story-changing here. She was born near the end of 58.

Also, people do get dates and times of events mixed up. I know I do.

Can you remember the date, or even year, you lost your virginity? I could probably work out the year, but I'm buggered if I can remember the date or even time of year. (It wasn't winter - that's about the best I can do.) Doesn't mean I don't remember every cringeworthy amazing detail of the night in question.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Just read this on facebook, no idea if true, might read up more on it later.
> 
> Lori Mattix was born in 1958. Bowie's first tour of America was in 72-73, it's easy to look that up. She also states she met Page in 73' while Zeppelin were touring 'Houses of the Holy (released in 73).. I hate to be cynical, but as Mattix has got older the age she met those guys has got lower. But the years don't change.


Isn't that exactly what she's saying though   She's 14/maybe just 15.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Isn't that exactly what she's saying though   She's 14/maybe just 15.



not done the maths yet, still trying to get my bellend kid to bed


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

IT'S OK GUYS SHE WAS 15 AFTER ALL!


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Just read this on facebook, no idea if true, might read up more on it later.
> 
> Lori Mattix was born in 1958. Bowie's first tour of America was in 72-73, it's easy to look that up. She also states she met Page in 73' while Zeppelin were touring 'Houses of the Holy (released in 73).. I hate to be cynical, but as Mattix has got older the age she met those guys has got lower. But the years don't change.


If his tour started at the beginning of 72 she was less than 13.3 years by summer 73 she was 14.8 years.  Looks like the Led Zeppelin tour ended at the same time.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> If you need proof that someone is above the age of consent then you should not be even thinking about sex with them.




I think the point that you missed is that some girls don't look and act their age. 


Quick quiz and don't google 



Which one of these actors arent age appropriate. 






























> Some of the stuff on here is disturbing tbh.
> We are not talking about a 16 or 17 yr old having sex with a 15 year old. Bowie was 30 in 1977...there is no way a 13 yr old, 14 year old or 15 yr old comes across as being an adult.



In all of those photos one actor is either playing someone much younger or much older than their actual age. Can you spot them without googling?


----------



## N_igma (Jan 11, 2016)

I don't get how some people who are trying to insinuate it wasn't as bad because she had a fond memory of the experience. What if she didn't? The legal age of consent is there for a reason. He broke that which is downright fucked up and creepy. I just don't get what goes through a person's head to do something like that. As someone else said if there's any doubt then err on the side of caution. He was a rock star for fuck sake definitely using his fame for his own personal gratification. 

He may have changed and he may have been a great influence on people etc and that shouldn't be taken away but that's just fucked up right there.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Bowies been compared to both King and Saville. King and Saville, groomed, and assaulted chidren methodically over a period of decades. 

I'll keep repeating no one aside from Maddox has come forward to talk about Bowie in this way, (and Maddox has stated the sex was completely consequential ,and theres' no evidence (thats been presented on this thread) Bowie was aware she was under 15.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma said:


> The legal age of consent is there for a reason. .


Would you say the same thing to him about the 19-20-year-old men he fucked at the time, or any of the men he fucked before he was 21? Or is it now, with benefit of hindsight, that you say 'no, that law was wrong, no problem breaking that one, but breaking this one here is unforgiveable'.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

There's a difference between a 14 year old girl and a 19 year old man. This is all a bit weird.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

killer b said:


> There's a difference between a 14 year old girl and a 19 year old man. This is all a bit weird.


I agree. But purely citing the law forgets that _the law _at the time didn't agree. The law at the time saw a 19 year old man as not able to consent to homosexual sex.


----------



## N_igma (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Would you say the same thing to him about the 19-20-year-old men he fucked at the time, or any of the men he fucked before he was 21? Or is it now, with benefit of hindsight, that you say 'no, that law was wrong, no problem breaking that one, but breaking this one here is unforgiveable'.



Well I think in relation to homosexual sex there was active campaigns by people of all persuasions to bring that in line with heterosexual sex. There was clearly something wrong with the law at the time and people fought to correct that and they did and they won! 

You don't find many people fighting to bring the age of consent down because people, rationally, agree that that's where the line should be drawn.

I'm just saying that if a teenage girl threw herself at me I'd talk to her, find out who she is, who her parents are, try to get her home safely maybe. You know the adult thing to do. I certainly wouldn't think 'ah I'll just fuck her' as many famous people did and may still do. 

No one is saying that what he done was anything near the same level as Saville etc but it's still creepy that's all.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 11, 2016)

_The iconic 71-year-old Led Zeppelin guitar god was spotted walking hand in hand in London with Scarlett Sabet, a 25-year-old actress.

Creepy fact: Page has a 44-year-old daughter. She's a photographer ... named Scarlet. _

Jimmy Page -- Getting His Led Out ... With a 25-Year-Old! (PHOTO)

...OK obvs not _*under*_-age but still...


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> a) The blatant hypocrisy in how we view what they did. If we like or admire a person's work there is a tendency to focus on their achievements/canon of work rather than their sexual shortcomings. If we _don't _like them then we focus on their sexual proclivities and ignore their work.
> 
> If Bowie had been a politician, especially a tory one, or Jim Davidson or  how many people would be queueing up to demand he get a poitive-comments-only RIP thread? None. In fact clowns like 8den would probably be leading the charge to pillory them.
> 
> ...



Can someone please explain to me just how how this ^ is "villifying" Bowie?

Nobody who speaks English as a first language could sonstrue this as villification - unless they reeeeeally reeeeally wanted to.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Would you say the same thing to him about the 19-20-year-old men he fucked at the time, or any of the men he fucked before he was 21? Or is it now, with benefit of hindsight, that you say 'no, that law was wrong, no problem breaking that one, but breaking this one here is unforgiveable'.



Shagging 13 year old girls was against the law then and against the law now. Shagging 19 year old blokes is no longer against the law. That's why he's being criticised for one and not the other.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> I think the point that you missed is that some girls don't look and act their age.
> 
> 
> Quick quiz and don't google
> ...




 Because looking at an image of an actor in costume is the same as watching how a real person speaks and acts in person


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

Patteran said:


> I agree, Liam, there is a double standard. Fact is, over on Facebook, i've been mitigating his flirtation with fascism in a discussion with some of our old comrades - something I wouldn't have done for Jim Davidson, or a Tory MP, or a singer I hadn't loved since my early teens. And when it's someone less dear to me, Queen for example, I'm the first to sneer 'Sun City cunts'. Maybe it's because we saw the end of the story - when i got into Ziggy in the early 80s, Bowie was a cool older dude in a suit with a band of mixed ethnicity, wearing a haircut that every lad at the football copied. Then he was an even older dude in a polo neck with a beautiful grown-up Somalian wife. He wasn't a noncey old nazi - the story didn't end that way. Course of least resistance - a little hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance is simpler than cutting something joyful out of our cultural lives. I saw him live, once - Maine Road, 87ish, Glass Spider Tour. He was shit. That didn't matter, either, didn't affect the relationship I'd developed with him. He was Bowie, & he was ace.



Patteran was able to read the first few posts and respond thus. Considered and honest. But then he has no agenda...

and (although I am not 100% sure _exactly_ who he is) we also have some shared activist history.

Lemme know who you are by PM Patteran

e2a thanks Seamus.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> I think the point that you missed is that some girls don't look and act their age.


I'd definitely be making very sure I knew this girl's age if I was an adult man intending to have sex with her.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Shagging 13 year old girls was against the law then and against the law now. Shagging 19 year old blokes is no longer against the law. That's why he's being criticised for one and not the other.



Really? I'm pretty sure there would be no-one on here that would criticise him for having sex with 19-yr old boys - whatever the law of the time said.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Really? I'm pretty sure there would be no-one on here that would criticise him for having sex with 19-yr old boys - whatever the law of the time said.



lbj seems to think we can't use the fact shagging young girls is illegal to judge him because you know, it's a blurry area, and anyway the age of consent for guys was higher then so the law is an ass.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> I'd definitely be making very sure I knew this girl's age if I was an adult man intending to have sex with her.
> 
> View attachment 81942 View attachment 81943




Kin ell...where were her parents/guardians/family?

All of this continued well into the 80's didn't it...the whole Mandy Smith thing...Sam Fox on page 3 etc..


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Kin ell...where were her parents/guardians/family?
> 
> All of this continued well into the 80's didn't it...the whole Mandy Smith thing...Sam Fox on page 3 etc..


Apparently her single mum worked nights, so she'd go out with some of her junior high school friends who were also "Baby Groupies".


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 11, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Kin ell...where were her parents/guardians/family?
> 
> All of this continued well into the 80's didn't it...the whole Mandy Smith thing...Sam Fox on page 3 etc..



http://webarchive.nationalarchives..../11/Witness-Statement-of-Charlotte-Church.pdf

Press Ctrl + F then search clock


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

deadringer said:


> Because looking at an image of an actor in costume is the same as watching how a real person speaks and acts in person



One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.

Still think this is cut and dry?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> I think the point that you missed is that some girls don't look and act their age.
> 
> 
> Quick quiz and don't google
> ...



I have no idea where to begin with this post. I have no idea what point you think you are making but it comes across as a "but they were jail bait".


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.
> 
> Still think this is cut and dry?


Yes it is cut and dry...the producers, crew and co stars were thick as shit...or wilfully ignorant.


----------



## N_igma (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.
> 
> Still think this is cut and dry?



Dude you're shifting the responsibility onto the child. That's not cool.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no idea where to begin with this post. I have no idea what point you think you are making but it comes across as a "but they were jail bait".



Actually no at least two of those actors were in their late 20s and happily blended in with actors ten or more years younger than them. Two actors are playing characters several years older than they were at the time.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma said:


> Dude you're shifting the responsibility onto the child. That's not cool.



I'm really not. I think sleeping with someone underage is reprehensible and wrong and the adult has a duty of care. However I think there is a difference between someone genuinely not knowing that the person they are with is underage, and someone who is actively pursuing and attracted to children.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Is it really that hard to avoid fucking under age girls 8den?  You make it sound like it could happen to anyone, but most adult men surely aren't in the position of saying "oops she looked 16" because they aren't trying to fuck 16 year olds?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Actually no at least two of those actors were in their late 20s and happily blended in with actors ten or more years younger than them. Two actors are playing characters several years older than they were at the time.



Who gives a shit if people look young for their age. This is a simple argument. ..
Is it ok for adults to have sex with under aged children?  No it fucking ain't is the only response acceptable.
There are no blurred lines...under aged children are easy to recognise when you speak to them.
I have no idea what point you think you are making but you are coming across as justifying adults having sex with under aged children cos its hard to tell how old some children are...and that, to me, is disturbing


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> lbj seems to think we can't use the fact shagging young girls is illegal to judge him because you know, it's a blurry area, and anyway the age of consent for guys was higher then so the law is an ass.



Don't think anyone is promoting that line in this case - except the fool 8den (who still chooses to ignore that the young girls were all plied with various narcotics too) .

I think any number of people are saying (rightly IMO) that there is a world of difference between running around trying gto get into the knickers of young teenagers and raping little kids. 

The former does not exactly win you moral brownie points but the latter is despicable. 

One of my main reasons for starting this thing was the fact that now we have a suitably-iconic, recently departed Artist in the frame, people who would normally be charging around calling everybody who disagrees withthem 'apologists' are suddenly keen on nuance. their postings on this thread will serve as reminders if they ever indulge in that again.

Others have been entirely consistent which, whether you agree or disagree with them, is honest and straight-up. There have been some really good posts on here. My favourite is Patteran's, although he was more talking about Bowie's political rather than sexual exploits.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Is it really that hard to avoid fucking under age girls 8den?  You make it sound like it could happen to anyone, but most adult men surely aren't in the position of saying "oops she looked 16" because they aren't trying to fuck 16 year olds?



Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl. 

I'm going to refer you to Felixthecat's post on the previous page


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

I know at least one former nightclub owner in a small city - and several bouncers/DJs - who live in daily terror of the early morning knock these days. I'm pretty sure that the reason he has never been lifted is that the cops were complicit at the time.

Once they stopped his fancy sports car at 4am, with a very drunk 13/14 yr old in the passenger seat. He would be in his early 30's at the time and was very blatant about shagging wee girls - especially virgins. They took two actions.

1. They took her home.

2. They approached his daddy and told him up straight to get the creepy fella into line or they would be taking the Licenses away for both their niteclubs. 

'Get to 'em before every other cunt does' was something he would say openly and regularly. Some of the Bouncers (including one particualarly dangerous individual) were itching to batter him, but no-one did.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree. But purely citing the law forgets that _the law _at the time didn't agree. The law at the time saw a 19 year old man as not able to consent to homosexual sex.


And that's why I think the law is somewhat incidental to this discussion: those who invoke it as the main point seem to be doing so in order to be able to make categorical statements about the fucked-upness of things. Which rather ignores the nuances of the issue - such as the point you make here.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> _The iconic 71-year-old Led Zeppelin guitar god was spotted walking hand in hand in London with Scarlett Sabet, a 25-year-old actress.
> 
> Creepy fact: Page has a 44-year-old daughter. She's a photographer ... named Scarlet. _
> 
> ...


*shrug* I imagine that she was there of her own free will. And money, fame and power are great aphrodisiacs.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> Who gives a shit if people look young for their age. This is a simple argument. ..
> Is it ok for adults to have sex with under aged children?  No it fucking ain't is the only response acceptable.
> There are no blurred lines...under aged children are easy to recognise when you speak to them.
> I have no idea what point you think you are making but you are coming across as justifying adults having sex with under aged children cos its hard to tell how old some children are...and that, to me, is disturbing




Are these female posters on this thread disturbing?



Glitter said:


> FWIW there's several rock stars I 'd have shagged as an underage schoolgirl. As a happily married 37 year old mother of two I'd still shag them. I know the bigger picture is much more than that but on a personal level it wouldn't have bothered me one bit.





Guineveretoo said:


> I was not aware of any stories about Bowie having sex with 13/14 year old girls in the 70s, despite being one of the 13/14 year old girls who met him at the time.
> 
> One of my girlfriends threw herself at him after a gig, trying to get a kiss, and bloodied his nose. So he decided he couldn't come back to Friars Aylesbury again because he had become a bit of a star, and there just wasn't any security.
> 
> I have honestly never heard that he was one of the known stars to be having underage sex. I certainly was aware at the time of several stars who known for it, but he was not one of them.





trashpony said:


> In the 70s a lot of girls I was at school with had older boyfriends. My sister was 14 and her boyfriend was 20.
> 
> I'm not condoning it but there's a massive difference between that and being a serial rapist





Guineveretoo said:


> I know 13 and 14 year olds who did just that. Threw themselves at Bowie. In the early 70s.
> 
> And were rejected by him.
> 
> Not that that proves anything, but it is as relevant as anything on this thread.





felixthecat said:


> I had sex with an at the time up and coming rock star who went on to become a bit of a superstar 2 weeks after my 16th birthday. Was there ever any question of me being underage? Nope. I was obviously young but how young was clearly never considered by him. Would the same thing have happened if the gig had been a month earlier? If I had anything to do with it damn right it would have. Was I coerced? Hell no. Was I swayed by the fact he fronted a band? Hell yes, of course. Were drugs and alcohol involved? Errr... yes.
> I dunno where I'm going with this really. I suppose I was taken advantage of but I don't think I was in anyway damaged by it. I suppose he should have known better but I wasn't behind the door in coming forward myself. I guess there is a very, very blurry line somewhere...


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Are these female posters on this thread disturbing?



No. The men who slept with them might be.


----------



## boohoo (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma said:


> The legal age of consent is there for a reason.



It was raised to 16 in 1885 as part of the Criminal Law Amendment  as protection at the time from children being sold into prostitution. The idea was very much campaigned for by the social purity movement who believed in abstinence from sex for both men and women - until marriage. This amendment also made any homosexual engagement between men illegal. 

Different countries have different ages of consent. Who is right? 

I do think if a bloke thinks a young woman is under age, he is best to avoid her advances. However I knew a 12 year olds who have convinced an 18 yr olds that she are 16. And a couple of 15 yr olds girls who were working through the 18/19 year olds. And one girl in sixth form who liked older men - she was 17 seeing a 30 year old - she is married to Dr Fox now  (same age gap)

It's complex. Young women - especially the school girl look are seen as attractive - the virgin who is up for it.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> No. The men who slept with them might be.



Thats is entirely possible.

Consider our OP btw, he freely admits that when he was underage he had sex with a woman who knew he was underage, and yet had sex with him anyway, is she disturbed? A rapist? A sex criminal? (we'll leave my dig about any woman who has sex with LiamO unsaid, but presumed implied).


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Thats is entirely possible.
> 
> Consider our OP btw, he freely admits that when he was underage he had sex with a woman who knew he was underage, and yet had sex with him anyway, is she disturbed? (we'll leave my dig about any woman who has sex with LiamO unsaid, but presumed implied).



I forget the details... mid teens and woman in 30s wasn't it? At any rate, yes, very probably.


----------



## killer b (Jan 11, 2016)

boohoo said:


> the school girl look are seen as attractive - the virgin who is up for it.


by creeps and fucking pervs.


----------



## N_igma (Jan 11, 2016)

boohoo said:


> It was raised to 16 in 1885 as part of the Criminal Law Amendment  as protection at the time from children being sold into prostitution. The idea was very much campaigned for by the social purity movement who believed in abstinence from sex for both men and women - until marriage. This amendment also made any homosexual engagement between men illegal.
> 
> Different countries have different ages of consent. Who is right?
> 
> ...



Yes it is a complex issue but the general trend as we have seen in Spain is for the age to go upwards not downwards and this presumably is to remove all possibilities of manipulation. 

Again, as others have pointed out. 17 year olds having sex with 14/15 years old is not the same as a greater age difference. 30 year old rock stars should know better. Maybe it was a one off indiscretion and he never done it again who knows but this thread has brought up some interesting points.

 There's people out there willing to defend what he done but if it was someone else done the same thing they would be the first to cry 'nonce'. So that may very well point to something about the human psyche and the power of celebrity which is interesting.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma said:


> Yes it is a complex issue but the general trend as we have seen in Spain is for the age to go upwards not downwards and this presumably is to remove all possibilities of manipulation.
> 
> Again, as others have pointed out. 17 year olds having sex with 14/15 years old is not the same as a greater age difference. 30 year old rock stars should know better. Maybe it was a one off indiscretion and he never done it again who knows but this thread has brought up some interesting points.
> 
> There's people out there willing to defend what he done but if it was someone else done the same thing they would be the first to cry 'nonce'. So that may very well point to something about the human psyche and the power of celebrity which is interesting.


If you're suggesting that people on this thread are "willing to defend what he done", I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick. There are definitely people on here wishing to offer a more thoughtful interpretation of all aspects of the whole business - just because they aren't simply going "rock star sleeps with underage girl -> PERVERT -> It's all fucked up" doesn't mean they're excusing it.


----------



## boohoo (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma I am not defending what he did but I sometimes find this attitude to young women's sexuality patronising. 

Some young women under the age of consent have no interest in sex, some do and would like to pursue it with a boy/girl from their peer group, some want a mature man who will quite likely be physically different to the youthful male friends, some might want full intercourse, others erotic fumblings, some want to snog their female friends or a mysterious sophisticated older lady. Some young women will act upon their urges - sometimes it will be an ace moment, sometimes not. Sometimes nothing will happen til they are legally old enough and all of this will exist in fantasy day dreams before that time. Some will be ready for that sexual awakening and others not. 

men - don't overprotect the young ladies. Empower us to be able to say no. Empower us to be able to hear no and not see it as a rejection. Teach your young men and young women about consent.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 11, 2016)

N_igma said:


> Yes it is a complex issue but the general trend as we have seen in Spain is for the age to go upwards not downwards and this presumably is to remove all possibilities of manipulation.
> 
> Again, as others have pointed out. 17 year olds having sex with 14/15 years old is not the same as a greater age difference. 30 year old rock stars should know better. Maybe it was a one off indiscretion and he never done it again who knows but this thread has brought up some interesting points.
> 
> There's people out there willing to defend what he done but if it was someone else done the same thing they would be the first to cry 'nonce'. So that may very well point to something about the human psyche and the power of celebrity which is interesting.



I don't know if its been covered already but it seems that California has one of the higher ages of consent in the US - Eighteen.

Their law there also seems to consider the age difference as well - With discretion given to someone within three years age difference, treating them less severely than someone over the three years different. The greatest severity however appears to be reserved for persons over twenty one having sex with under sixteens.


----------



## N_igma (Jan 11, 2016)

boohoo said:


> N_igma I am not defending what he did but I sometimes find this attitude to young women's sexuality patronising.
> 
> Some young women under the age of consent have no interest in sex, some do and would like to pursue it with a boy/girl from their peer group, some want a mature man who will quite likely be physically different to the youthful male friends, some might want full intercourse, others erotic fumblings, some want to snog their female friends or a mysterious sophisticated older lady. Some young women will act upon their urges - sometimes it will be an ace moment, sometimes not. Sometimes nothing will happen til they are legally old enough and all of this will exist in fantasy day dreams before that time. Some will be ready for that sexual awakening and others not.
> 
> men - don't overprotect the young ladies. Empower us to be able to say no. Empower us to be able to hear no and not see it as a rejection. Teach your young men and young women about consent.



Yes I'm fully aware it's a rich tapestry. I mean we can all agree we were all teenagers at one point in our lives yes?  

Of course people will have sexual awakenings at an earlier age than others but the point is that people of an adult age should know better. The older you are the more you realise this. Bowie should've realised this himself but he didn't. Also if drink and drugs were involved then it gets even murkier but I'm not fully aware of the details on this particular affair.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Are these female posters on this thread disturbing?


Anyone who justifies adults sleeping with under aged children disturbs me cos in my opinion no one should justify adults having sex with under aged children.
Have no idea why you put those quotes in or tried to make a point about them being women...one said she shagged an up and coming pop star when she was 16, one said she knew under aged girls who threw themselves at Bowie  (unsuccessfully) and another said they'd have shagged him when they were under aged.
None of them...as far as I can see. ..said it was ok for an adult to have sex with an under aged child so I can see no reason to be disturbed by their contributions


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> Anyone who justifies adults sleeping with under aged children disturbs me cos in my opinion no one should justify adults having sex with under aged children.
> Have no idea why you put those quotes in or tried to make a point about them being women...one said she shagged an up and coming pop star when she was 16, one said she knew under aged girls who threw themselves at Bowie  (unsuccessfully) and another said they'd have shagged him when they were under aged.
> None of them...as far as I can see. ..said it was ok for an adult to have sex with an under aged child so I can see no reason to be disturbed by their contributions




As has been pointed out that the age of consent in California is 18 or Spain 13. So depending on where that poster was it could have been illegal or perfectly acceptable (legally acceptable not morally)

Do you really think what Bowie did is as wrong as say Saville?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

boohoo said:


> Teach your young men and young women about consent.


This. If there is one thing that hasn't fundamentally changed since the 1970s, and may even be arguably worse now than it was, it's the consent problem. This time, the issue seems to be driven by the availability of porn on the 'net combined with a fairly hands-off approach to teaching about sexual behaviour in educational settings. But it comes down to the same thing in the end. While we are undoubtedly less tolerant of sexual abuse by peers or others than we were, we're still not doing a very good job of educating them out of it.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> This. If there is one thing that hasn't fundamentally changed since the 1970s, and may even be arguably worse now than it was, it's the consent problem. This time, the issue seems to be driven by the availability of porn on the 'net combined with a fairly hands-off approach to dealing with sexual behaviour in educational settings. But it comes down to the same thing in the end. While we are undoubtedly less tolerant of sexual abuse by peers or others than we were, we're still not doing a very good job of educating them out of it.



Yup....

"No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal" Frat Banned From Yale | Big Think


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Yup....
> 
> "No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal" Frat Banned From Yale | Big Think


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> As has been pointed out that the age of consent in California is 18 or Spain 13. So depending on where that poster was it could have been illegal or perfectly acceptable (legally acceptable not morally)
> 
> Do you really think what Bowie did is as wrong as say Saville?


Saville is a straw man here. The pro Bowie integument seems to be:

It's ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl
He made brilliant music so we look for nuance
When you are high on coke you are not responsible for what you say


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Saville is a straw man here. The pro Bowie integument seems to be:
> 
> It's ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl
> He made brilliant music so we look for nuance
> When you are high on coke you are not responsible for what you say


That's quite a selective reading of the overall posts, and conflates at least 2 discussions in a somewhat loaded way.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Saville is a straw man here. The pro Bowie integument seems to be:
> 
> It's ok for a 30 year old man to have sex with a 13 year old girl
> He made brilliant music so we look for nuance
> When you are high on coke you are not responsible for what you say



1.  Dont think anyone has said that.

2. I dont think anyone said that either.

3. Possibly, I dont think I said that either.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> That's quite a selective reading of the overall posts, and conflates at least 2 discussions in a somewhat loaded way.



Quite, and the irony his suggestion that the Saville comparison is a straw man when his entire post consists of a dictionary definition straw man argument.


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2016)

Just to clarify Bowie was 11 years older than her. Chucking around 13 and 30 just because it's a nice soundbite isn't particularly helpful.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

Cid said:


> Just to clarify Bowie was 11 years older than her. Chucking around 13 and 30 just because it's a nice soundbite isn't particularly helpful.


Does 13 and 30 or 14 and 25 make a big difference then?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Does 13 and 30 or 14 and 25 make a big difference then?


No.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> No.


Though it's always nice to be accurate with facts.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Though it's always nice to be accurate with facts.


What do you think of Thora's question?


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> As has been pointed out that the age of consent in California is 18 or Spain 13. So depending on where that poster was it could have been illegal or perfectly acceptable (legally acceptable not morally)
> 
> Do you really think what Bowie did is as wrong as say Saville?



I have no idea what you do not understand so I will spell it out again

1) Adults should not have sex with under aged children
2) There is no justification for adults having sex with under aged children (I do not give a shit how old the adult claims they thought the under aged child looked)
3) People who defend adults or seek to excuse adults  who have sex with under aged children disturb me

I have not compared Bowie to anyone including Saville. .. so your question is stupid...

I also said in my first post that I knew nothing about Bowie...I have only expressed my views in general terms and have not accused him of being or doing anything. 

Adults who have sex with under aged children are disgusting ... under aged children are not the problem...no matter how old they may look to an adult, no matter how they dress, no matter if they throw themselves at an adult...the adult has no right to have sex with them.

Age of consents in other countries are irrelevant. .. and I  find your arguments disingenuous...this issue is not complicated in the slightest.

Adults should never want or have sex with under aged children

If I can get to 49 years old and not have had sex with an under aged child then so can and should EVERYONE.

Hopefully that is clear for you


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

No because the agent of consent in California is 18. So while the relationship Felixthecat had would be perfectly legal here, it would be illegal in the US. 

So long as these basic facts seem to keep eluding you there's little point in engaging with you.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> there's little point in engaging with you.



Thank fuck for that


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Does 13 and 30 or 14 and 25 make a big difference then?



No. It did raise a thought in the back of my head (probably because I like Bowie and am looking for excuses); 30 year old me was certainly quite different from 25 year old me, but nothing on the 20-25 gulf. But no, I think you're certainly fully culpable at 25.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> What do you think of Thora's question?


I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.


What's your answer to it?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> I have no idea what you do not understand so I will spell it out again
> 
> 1) Adults should not have sex with under aged children
> 2) There is no justification for adults having sex with under aged children (I do not give a shit how old the adult claims they thought the under aged child looked)
> ...


I don't actually think anyone _is_ justifying adults having sex with underage children.

What they are doing is acknowledging that it has happened, but failing to get into a tiz over it, instead preferring to have a reasonably sensible discussion about all the issues that arise about consent, using one's judgement, and the way in which attitudes have changed (somewhat) in 40 years.

I fully appreciate that some people are simply going to be so outraged by the whole thing that the limit of their thought on the matter will be "Bad. Shouldn't happen". That's fine. But for those who might want to explore the subject in a slightly more considered way, it's getting a bit tedious to keep batting the absolutists out of the way, or fend off constant accusations that even having a discussion about it is somehow justifying or excusing the initial behaviours.

We hear you. Your bullet point opinions (not just yours, comrade spurski) are there for all to see. Just because they haven't brought the discussion to a screeching halt following by universal agreement of what you're saying doesn't mean you have to repeat them.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 11, 2016)

I just noticed that the flirting with fascism period runs for over two years. The Playboy interview is in 1974 and he doesn't adopt the Thin White Duke Persona till 76-77.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 11, 2016)

Thora said:


> Does 13 and 30 or 14 and 25 make a big difference then?



What about 16 and 112? All legal and above board.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> I just noticed that the flirting with fascism period runs for over two years. The Playboy interview is in 1974 and he doesn't adopt the Thin White Duke Persona till 76-77.


It was a lot of coke.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> What's your answer to it?


I think that there is a difference between 13 and 30, and 14 and 25.

Legally, of course, there is no difference: both of the younger ages are above 12, eliminating the question of whether they would be competent to give consent, but below 16 which indicates that sexual activity with either would be illegal (in the UK). Of the higher ages, neither is so close to either of the lower ages to make it likely that a "Romeo & Juliet" defence could be made, and not so far apart from each other to make much in the way of a material difference to how the matter might be seen legally.

But, given that we are (presumably) talking about specifics, rather than hypotheticals, it seems to me to make quite a lot of sense to at least know we're working with the right ages, regardless of what difference (or none) it makes legally.


----------



## Thora (Jan 11, 2016)

What difference does it make then?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

Legally and morally there is no difference


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't actually think anyone _is_ justifying adults having sex with underage children.
> 
> What they are doing is acknowledging that it has happened, but failing to get into a tiz over it, instead preferring to have a reasonably sensible discussion about all the issues that arise about consent, using one's judgement, and the way in which attitudes have changed (somewhat) in 40 years.
> 
> ...





Quite, if this forum was just "I think X, what you do think" And everyone simply agreed with the premise, it would be a very dull.  Infinitely more pleasant mind you, but very very dull.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Legally and morally there is no difference


I don't think you can say there is no moral difference without considering the specific individuals involved, the nature of the relationship, and the effects of it on both parties.

Even if the question of its legality is beyond doubt.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Legally and morally there is no difference



Actually diminished responsibility due to inebriation is a legally recognised concept, and forms the part of many pleas.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Actually diminished responsibility due to inebriation is a legally recognised concept, and forums the part of many pleas.


This is total fucking bollocks.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> This is total fucking bollocks.



You're saying you don't believe that diminished responsibility due to intoxication exists legally or are you saying that you think that using it as a mitigating  factor as part of a legal defence is bollocks?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> You're saying you don't believe that diminished responsibility due to intoxication exists legally or are you saying that you think that using it as a mitigating  factor as part of a legal defence is bollocks?


Who are you making excuses for here?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Who are you making excuses for here?



I'm not. You said that being intoxicated is not an excuse "morally or legally" I merely pointed out that the legal system disagrees with you and that intoxication defence is a recognised legal concept. I'm not "excusing" anyone, I'm saying that you're wrong on this particular point.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 11, 2016)

Why bring this up on this thread then?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

This thread is disturbing. It seems that you can excuse someone almost anything if you revere them for something else.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> That's a step too far, Shirley? Many of your best friends over many years are tax-dodgers.



I honestly haven't a scooby dooo who you could be referring to .


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This thread is disturbing. It seems that you can excuse someone almost anything if you revere them for something else.



Can you point out anyone who's said that?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Never mind your discriminatory posts about disability elsewhere, if someone that you disagreed with politically (Casually Red for example) came out with comments like this, you would be the first person to accuse them being an apologist for male abuse of sexual power, reminding everyone of it at every opportunity. You're a hypocrite.



And don't forget he'd also be reporting my post, calling for everyone else on the thread to report it too and shouting for me to be banned. Which is what he does, the little cunt .


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Can you point out anyone who's said that?



I just did.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> I just did.



Where?


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Where?


You quoted it.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't actually think anyone _is_ justifying adults having sex with underage children.
> 
> What they are doing is acknowledging that it has happened, but failing to get into a tiz over it, instead preferring to have a reasonably sensible discussion about all the issues that arise about consent, using one's judgement, and the way in which attitudes have changed (somewhat) in 40 years.
> 
> ...



8den is being disingenuous. ..I have only responded to him.
He has produced spurious arguments including posting quotes by female posters and photos of female actors which clearly had nothing to do with what I had written ...he also asked if I really thought Bowie was like Saville.

To some of us saying the age of consent is higher in the USA and lower in Spain, that girls can look older so (by implication) men can be tricked, it was a long time ago (don't get that one as the age of consent for hetrosexual sex was still 16 back in the 1970s) etc etc comes across as justifying / excusing adults having sex with under aged children.

When I was at secondary school (1978 -83) men who leared at my girl mates at school were referred to as perverts so I don't get this ... well that's how it was back then. 

I have not sought to bring any discussion to a screeching halt ... I just strongly disagree with 8den and his disingenuous arguments.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Don't think anyone is promoting that line in this case - except the fool 8den (who still chooses to ignore that the young girls were all plied with various narcotics too) .
> 
> I think any number of people are saying (rightly IMO) that there is a world of difference between running around trying gto get into the knickers of young teenagers and raping little kids.
> 
> ...




You should see the cologne thread. Some absolute fucking doozies on there . From start to finish . Sacred cows are sacred cows at the end of the day .


----------



## josef1878 (Jan 11, 2016)

Glitter said:


> Given that you're not allowed to post in that thread anymore I'll answer you here so I'm not goading you for a reaction.
> 
> You could have started this thread regardless of the RIP thread. It's an interesting enough subject and it'll generate plenty of controversy. Instead you waded into the RIP thread where people are grieving and emotional just to upset and anger them.
> 
> ...



Why does none of that surprise me  typically honest and spot on


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> This thread is disturbing. It seems that you can excuse someone almost anything if you revere them for something else.


Show me some of this excusing.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Show me some of this excusing.


"One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.
Still think this is cut and dry?"


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.
> Still think this is cut and dry?"


I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the point that statement was in support of, but how was it excusing underage sex?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> "One of those actors claimed to be 18 when cast. She spent more than a few weeks surrounded by Producers, Crew and Co Stars before they discovered she was 14.
> Still think this is cut and dry?"



That was in response to Comrade Sputnik claiming that there's "no way" anyone could mistake a 15yo for a 18yo. I provided an example of just that.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the point that statement was in support of, but how was it excusing underage sex?



Where did I say it was excusing underage sex?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Where did I say it was excusing underage sex?


Er, by replying to existentialist's post with that quote. What else could you have meant?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Where did I say it was excusing underage sex?


You used the phrase "excuse almost anything". Given the nature of the thread, it didn't seem unreasonable for me to assume you weren't talking about the merits of mulching.


----------



## MarkyMarrk (Jan 11, 2016)

existentialist said:


> You used the phrase "excuse almost anything". Given the nature of the thread, it didn't seem unreasonable for me to assume you weren't talking about the merits of mulching.


Perhaps refrain from assuming such things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Perhaps refrain from assuming such things.


Perhaps be a bit clearer about why you quote someone else, then. I still don't see what else you could have meant by doing that.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

MarkyMarrk said:


> Perhaps refrain from assuming such things.


Perhaps make your posts a little less ambiguous, and fewer assumptions might have to be made.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2016)

And, while we're at it, what _were _you referring to?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 11, 2016)

.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I had sex with an at the time up and coming rock star who went on to become a bit of a superstar 2 weeks after my 16th birthday. Was there ever any question of me being underage? Nope. I was obviously young but how young was clearly never considered by him. Would the same thing have happened if the gig had been a month earlier? If I had anything to do with it damn right it would have. Was I coerced? Hell no. Was I swayed by the fact he fronted a band? Hell yes, of course. Were drugs and alcohol involved? Errr... yes.
> I dunno where I'm going with this really. I suppose I was taken advantage of but I don't think I was in anyway damaged by it. I suppose he should have known better but I wasn't behind the door in coming forward myself. I guess there is a very, very blurry line somewhere...



Fair enough like, and I'm not saying you should feel like damaged by it or owt. I wouldn't even think there was anything at all dodgy about it if they were only a couple of years older. But while you might have had a great time etc and there's nothing wrong with that, in my head I place serious question marks over men in their '20's or older who are interested in girls that young. That might be unfair but you won't change my mind.

I'd also add that there is a world of difference between being aged 13 and being aged 16.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 11, 2016)

One thought - since this thread is specifically about musicians and under age girls - one thing that the hippy era opened up was a culture of free love and taboo breaking - i think to some extent sexual age difference was another taboo that went out the window somewhat at that time...my impression is that in the 60s the ideals were high, but by the 70s things just became more habits and the higher ideals evaporated away, leaving some goings on looking pretty grotty.

Music culture was the main carrier for the counterculture, and so musicians involved in that were at the epicentre of that sex and drugs liberalism. Maybe in that context its not as surprising that this attitude towards young girls became normalised. Throw in the prevailing patriarchal sexual inequality backdrop and its a perfect storm


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.



What the FUCK is wrong with you son? "Wasn't a typical 15 year old girl"??? Never mind that she wasn't 15 at the time anyway, where the fuck do you get this from?


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> What the FUCK is wrong with you son? "Wasn't a typical 15 year old girl"??? Never mind that she wasn't 15 at the time anyway, where the fuck do you get this from?



Very few 15yo girls are out partying on the Sunset Strip and are on a first name basis with the Lead Singers of the biggest rockstars in the world. 

Have you read anything about Maddox's book?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Eh? How the fuck did you come to that conclusion?
> 
> I think I'll leave you men to huff and puff among yourselves.



Dunno what gender has to do with it, and I don't think I was huffing or puffing. But you said this and (sorry if I'm being overly cynical but you do get the odd weirdo pop up) it seemed a bit odd to me.



trashpony said:


> No it isn't. There's no such offence as statutory rape.
> 
> It's arbitrary (the age of consent).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> One thought - since this thread is specifically about musicians and under age girls - one thing that the hippy era opened up was a culture off free love and taboo breaking - i think to some extent age differences was another taboo that went out the window somewhat at that time...my impressions is that in the 60s the ideals were high, but by the 70s things just became more habits and the higher ideals evaporated away somewhat, leaving some goings on looking pretty grotty.
> 
> Music culture was the main carrier for the counterculture, and so musicians involved in that were at the epicentre of that sex and drugs liberalism. Maybe in that context its not as surprising that this attitude towards young girls became normalised. Throw in the prevailing patriarchal sexual inequality backdrop and its a perfect storm


Yep. And not excusing it, particularly given your last sentence, which is also key, I think - not as enlightened as they thought they were half the time - the times they were emerging from were ones of ultra-conservative official mores and hypocrisy. As late as the 50s, teenage girls were being sectioned for having sex and enjoying it. Homosexual sex was only (semi-)legalised in the late 60s. And yet a man could still rape his wife right up to 1990. That was the point I was trying to make clumsily earlier - authority and the law were a nonsense half the time, and they knew it. Many of those taboos needed to be broken, but in breaking them, in setting themselves apart from the law and normal custom, they opened up space for abuse - no doubt about that.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 11, 2016)

8den said:


> Very few 15yo girls are out partying on the Sunset Strip and are on a first name basis with the Lead Singers of the biggest rockstars in the world.
> 
> Have you read anything about Maddox's book?



And what has that got to do with it?

You know exactly what you meant.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

ska invita said:


> One thought - since this thread is specifically about musicians and under age girls - one thing that the hippy era opened up was a culture of free love and taboo breaking - i think to some extent sexual age difference was another taboo that went out the window somewhat at that time...my impression is that in the 60s the ideals were high, but by the 70s things just became more habits and the higher ideals evaporated away, leaving some goings on looking pretty grotty.
> 
> Music culture was the main carrier for the counterculture, and so musicians involved in that were at the epicentre of that sex and drugs liberalism. Maybe in that context its not as surprising that this attitude towards young girls became normalised. Throw in the prevailing patriarchal sexual inequality backdrop and its a perfect storm




I was working on a movie about the 1960s, the OZ magazine trial to be exact, and we had alot of archive material, magazines, footage from old festivals etc, one stands out was a hippie interviewed on camera talking about how he regularly gave his six year old child some acid, just a quarter or a half tab mind.


----------



## 8den (Jan 11, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> And what has that got to do with it?
> 
> You know exactly what you meant.



Apparently you seem to think you have a greater insight into what I am saying that I do.

Have you considered becoming a telephone psychic?

Did you read any of the links about the encounter been Maddox and Bowie?


----------



## N_igma (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I was working on a movie about the 1960s, the OZ magazine trial to be exact, and we had alot of archive material, magazines, footage from old festivals etc, one stands out was a hippie interviewed on camera talking about how he regularly gave his six year old child some acid, just a quarter or a half tab mind.



'Just' a quarter or a half tab? To a fucking 6 year old? What the actual fuck?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

How can I make it clearer? Thora asked you a question:



Thora said:


> Is it really that hard to avoid fucking under age girls 8den?  You make it sound like it could happen to anyone, but most adult men surely aren't in the position of saying "oops she looked 16" because they aren't trying to fuck 16 year olds?



You responded:



8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.
> 
> I'm going to refer you to Felixthecat's post on the previous page



What on earth difference does that make? Oh, he was a rock star and she was going to lots of parties with rock stars, so getting a child high on drugs and fucking them is fine?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Dunno what gender has to do with it, and I don't think I was huffing or puffing. But you said this and (sorry if I'm being overly cynical but you do get the odd weirdo pop up) it seemed a bit odd to me.


Sex, not gender. 

I wasn't just talking about you (the huffing and puffing). And my pointing out that a) statutory rape doesn't exist in the UK and that b) the age of consent is arbitrary because it varies so much between countries tells you nothing about whether I'm an odd weirdo or otherwise. They're just facts. 

Incidentally, I'm 51 and I'm a mother of a 9 year old. So yes, a bit odd. But probably the same age as your mum


----------



## ska invita (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I was working on a movie about the 1960s, the OZ magazine trial to be exact, and we had alot of archive material, magazines, footage from old festivals etc, one stands out was a hippie interviewed on camera talking about how he regularly gave his six year old child some acid, just a quarter or a half tab mind.


Theres a Freak Brothers strip about a (IIRC) 14 year old girl who runs away from home (telling her parents to get bent) and all the freaky shit she gets up to...wish I could find that quickly, but theres just too many to look through. As has been expressed already, its wrong to take away all agency from certain underage girls themselves


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

This is quite an insight into the culture of the time: star1973.com


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Sex, not gender.
> 
> I wasn't just talking about you (the huffing and puffing). And my pointing out that a) statutory rape doesn't exist in the UK and that b) the age of consent is arbitrary because it varies so much between countries tells you nothing about whether I'm an odd weirdo or otherwise. They're just facts.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm 51 and I'm a mother of a 9 year old. So yes, a bit odd. But probably the same age as your mum



Nah, she's got ten years on you. Apologies, I read you as saying that the whole concept of the age of consent was arbitrary, looking back I think I conflated your post with someone elses.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

N_igma said:


> 'Just' a quarter or a half tab? To a fucking 6 year old? What the actual fuck?



Yeah he was chatting away at the Isle of White festival to camera crew like this was no big deal. 

The film I was working on was the story of the magazine Oz and we ended up with the entire back catalogue sitting around the office, sexual politics and gender were alot different then, perhaps thats why I think it's a mitigating factor in what happened.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I was working on a movie about the 1960s, the OZ magazine trial to be exact, and we had alot of archive material, magazines, footage from old festivals etc, one stands out was a hippie interviewed on camera talking about how he regularly gave his six year old child some acid, just a quarter or a half tab mind.



You do understand that that is child abuse don't you?


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> How can I make it clearer? Thora asked you a question:
> 
> 
> 
> You responded:



I think I did respond to Thora and if I didn't I apologise. As I pointed out already about a half dozen women on this forum have stated that as teenagers they were attracted to or involved with older rock stars. I'm not saying thats acceptable, just the issue is a tad more complex. 



> What on earth difference does that make? Oh, he was a rock star and she was going to lots of parties with rock stars, so getting a child high on drugs and fucking them is fine?



I'm going to go out on a limb at this junction and say you haven't read Maddox's account of the night in question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> This is quite an insight into the culture of the time: star1973.com


Bloody hell!


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> You do understand that that is child abuse don't you?



Yes of course I do. Unfortunately I could not do anything about it, because you see when I watched it was 2008, and the film was shot in 1969, and I suspect I'm now going to have to explain the linear nature of time to you at this junction.

I posted that as example of completely different cultural norms that have existed in the past 50 years.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> This is quite an insight into the culture of the time: star1973.com



I think those say it all really, the 70s were massively fucked up.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb at this junction and say you haven't read Maddox's account of the night in question.



Read the articles, watched the interviews. Some time ago, re-read/watched this morning for accuracy.

But this morning you hadn't, had you? You didn't seem to have.



8den said:


> But the evidence hasn't been posted here.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bloody hell!


Edition 5 features an interview with Laurie's friend Sable, advising on how to become a good groupie.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Read the articles, watched the interviews. Some time ago, re-read/watched this morning for accuracy.
> 
> But this morning you hadn't, had you? You didn't seem to have.



Actually I had and I have. 

When I said that people were claiming Bowie had predilection for underage girls, and I pointed out two things;

1. Nowhere in Maddox's account does she say Bowie knew she was underage. 

2. Maddox' account appears to be the only account of anyone talking about Bowie having sex with a underaged boy or girl. 

You are taking what I said out of context badly. In that you're trying to make it show that I said something I didnt say, and you're making a hams fist of it.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

It wasn't okay to have sex with young teenagers in the 60s or 70s. These were not cultural norms.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Actually I had and I have.
> 
> When I said that people were claiming Bowie had predilection for underage girls, and I pointed out two things;
> 
> ...



1. She was clearly underage at the time. It wouldn't need saying. She looked like a kid.
2. Once is enough. I've never had sex with a child even once. Because I'm not a paedo.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> It wasn't okay to have sex with young teenagers in the 60s or 70s. These were not cultural norms.



We don't know if Bowie knew she was a young teenager when he slept with her. And we've been shown several examples of him rejecting girls when he knew they were definitely underage.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Actually I had and I have.
> 
> When I said that people were claiming Bowie had predilection for underage girls, and I pointed out two things;
> 
> ...



He did,  and even asked her mother, who seemed to encourage it:


I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

tendril said:


> He did,  and even asked her mother, who seemed to encourage it:
> 
> 
> I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie



You're confusing Bowie with Jimmy Page.



> Zeppelin was starting its tour for _Houses of the Holy_ and Jimmy stationed himself in LA. The band had a private jet, called the Starship, and he flew back and forth from the gigs. But I was underage and couldn’t travel with him. So I would stay in the room and wait for Jimmy. At that point, I was 15 and totally in love with this man. I put him on a pedestal. It became so serious that Jimmy asked my mom for permission to be with me.
> 
> _*THRILLIST: *Wait -- he asked your mom? Did he ever seem at all nervous about having sex with a minor?_
> 
> ...



I have no problem at all in stating that Page's relationship with Maddox was incredibly wrong and sick.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Actually I had and I have.
> 
> When I said that people were claiming Bowie had predilection for underage girls, and I pointed out two things;
> 
> ...



Give over, am I fuck. It's not about Bowie anymore, it's about you and the fact that you think if somebody is a rock star and somebody else is _a certain type _of young teenager then its all fair game.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Give over, am I fuck. It's not about Bowie anymore, it's about you and the fact that you think if somebody is a rock star and somebody else is _a certain type _of young teenager then its all fair game.



Wow you've got this whole little thing going on in your head, I don't even need to be here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> You're confusing Bowie with Jimmy Page.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem at all in stating that Page's relationship with Maddox was incredibly wrong and sick.



Seems I am, though Lori says that her mum probaby knew:

_*THRILLIST: *Did your mother have any idea what was going on?_

I think she knew. But what could she say?


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

tendril said:


> Seems I am, though Lori says that her mum probaby knew:
> 
> _*THRILLIST: *Did your mother have any idea what was going on?_
> 
> I think she knew. But what could she say?



I read that to mean her mum had some idea she was sexually active with rockstars but had no idea of the details. Her previous answer was about her lifestyle at the time and the answer seemed more generic than specific about Bowie. 

But we can agree it was Page and not Bowie who had a long term relationship with Maddox with Maddox's mum full knowledge, something that I think is far more serious and dangerous than her relationship with Bowie. 

So we're clear no were in Maddox's account does she say Bowie knew she was definitely under age and Maddox's account is the only one we have of Bowie' sexual relations with a minor (and again we have several accounts including some actual posters on this forum talking about how Bowie rejected advances from girls who were underage). 

So going on the one account now (and I add if that more women come forward and talk about how Bowie liked to ply underage girls with drugs and have sex with them, I will of course condemn him), but going on this one account it is, very conceivable that on this night he showed VERY poor judgment and knowingly or unknowingly had sex with an underage girl.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I read that to mean her mum had some idea she was sexually active with rockstars but had no idea of the details. Her previous answer was about her lifestyle at the time and the answer seemed more generic than specific about Bowie.
> 
> But we can agree it was Page and not Bowie who had a long term relationship with Maddox with Maddox's mum full knowledge, something that I think is far more serious and dangerous than her relationship with Bowie.
> 
> ...


Given the range and amount of intoxicants floating around then, good judgment was probably impossible


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

Also, and this in no way directly implicates Bowie, it was pretty rife back then, even warranting 5 editions from Star magazine:


Diamonds From The Mine: The New Generation of Groupies


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.



You're absolutely correct 8den . She definitely wasn't a typical 15  year old girl . For starters she was 14 years old, and most 15 year old girls are a year older than that .

Eta

And when Bowie " took her virginity "... That is sexually molested a child, she was only 13 . Page waited till she was 14...actually he didn't wait . He just didn't meet her till then .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

How hard is it to say , the bloke was a musical genius, who produced some brilliant memorable stuff . But as a bloke he was a bit of a cunt who took advantage of young kids . As in fucked them . And had there been any justice he'd have gone to jail .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Really...it's like some of these dudes are groupies themselves . Not enough to like the music they have to suck famous cock too .

They won't actually thank you for it you know, the craven adulation. There's no actual reward .


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> How hard is it to say , the bloke was a musical genius, who produced some brilliant memorable stuff . But as a bloke he was a bit of a cunt who took advantage of young kids . As in fucked them . And had there been any justice he'd have gone to jail .



Let's leave aside a lot of things here. You have evidence that there were more girls than Maddox?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> How can I make it clearer? Thora asked you a question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A 13 year old child . 8dens telling fibs again . Lori Maddox was 13 years old when Bowie got at her . 8den is actually justifying grown men drugging and fucking 13 year old kids .

He just did that, lots of times . Might be time for me to name him after another well known broadcaster .


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> A 13 year old child . 8dens telling fibs again . Lori Maddox was 13 years old when Bowie got at her . 8den is actually justifying grown men drugging and fucking 13 year old kids .
> 
> He just did that, lots of times . Might be time for me to name him after another well known broadcaster .



Okay. So you can't name any other women? 

I merely ask because many posters have eluded to it, but 18 plus pages later here we are with just the one.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Let's leave aside a lot of things here. You have evidence that there were more girls than Maddox?



No 8den let's not leave aside a lot of things. The things we won't leave aside is she was 13 when Bowie..whose music I truly admire...drugged and fucked that 13 year old child .
Nor will we leave aside you thinking that's ticketyboo behaviour for any grown adult . Nor will we leave aside you deliberately lying about her age in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable .

I'd really advise you to drop this one . In the past I've made a cunt of myself sticking up for Elvis and John Peel . I was in denial because I really admired both of them over their contribution to music. Later I had a word with myself and realised despite that they were still exploiting kids for their own twisted gratification . And that was pretty despicable behaviour  for grown men . Noncery actually .

And I'm not going to meet them in heaven someday and they'll go " thanks for that mate " . So why bother making a cunt out of yourself over this ? a creepy sounding one every time you try and justify the unjustifiable .

It's very very wrong to drug and fuck 13 year old kids . As a grown man you should instinctively know this . I did but I buried that instinct while defending 2 famous geezers far too dead to give a toss. And I really, truly and honestly regret that now.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Okay. So you can't name any other women?
> 
> I merely ask because many posters have eluded to it, but 18 plus pages later here we are with just the one.



Well plainly the phrase " fuck one sheep " means nothing to you . If he liked children that young there were probably more . And even if he didn't fuck more of them, he still liked children that young. Which is why he drugged and fucked lori Maddox when she was 13 years old .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Okay. So you can't name any other women?
> 
> .




Children 8den. A 13 year old is a child, not a woman .

For fucks sake man . Have a serious word with yourself .


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Children 8den. A 13 year old is a child, not a woman .
> 
> For fucks sake man . Have a serious word with yourself .



If they were teenagers in the 1970s they'd be women now.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Well plainly the phrase " fuck one sheep " means nothing to you . If he liked children that young there were probably more . And even if he didn't fuck more of them, he still liked children that young. Which is why he drugged and fucked lori Maddox when she was 13 years old .



So we've gone from a definite positive a handful of post Ago to "probably"


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> If they were teenagers in the 1970s they'd be women now.



So then your question should be are there any more grown women now who've come forward and admitted Bowie fucked them when they were kids ? 

Not yet. So far just the one has admitted Bowie drugged and fucked her when she was a child of 13 .


You seem determined to dig your own hole on this one. My final bit of advice to you is there is no win here . It's all lose. Either way .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> So we've gone from a definite positive a handful of post Ago to "probably"



No 8den we've gone to a bit of your psyche and moral compass that I really wish..for your sake..we hadn't .


----------



## 1927 (Jan 12, 2016)

sim667 said:


> Whats happened until innocent until proven guilty? I've no doubt that he may have slept with underage girls (and possibly boys too), but there is a legal framework in place where they can report it. Yet as far as I know there have never been any investigations into Bowies conduct, and bringing a bunch of unfounded allegations up in an RIP thread seems a bit of a cunts trick to be totally honest.
> 
> That said, its a conversation that does need to be have, especially in light of the ongoing probes, but there's a time and a place, and an RIP thread, is not it, especially as there's been no specific public allegation against him.


Innocent unless proven guilty? I don't recall Savile's trial!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> a fairly hands-off approach to teaching about sexual behaviour in educational settings.


I should hope so too!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> not done the maths yet, still trying to get my bellend kid to bed


Be sure to check under the bed for pop icons.


----------



## Sweet FA (Jan 12, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Theres a Freak Brothers strip about a (IIRC) 14 year old girl who runs away from home (telling her parents to get bent) and all the freaky shit she gets up to...


I remember that - it seemed fucked up when I read it 20 odd years ago. She gets taken in by a biker gang at one point.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 12, 2016)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough like, and I'm not saying you should feel like damaged by it or owt. I wouldn't even think there was anything at all dodgy about it if they were only a couple of years older. But while you might have had a great time etc and there's nothing wrong with that, in my head I place serious question marks over men in their '20's or older who are interested in girls that young. That might be unfair but you won't change my mind.
> 
> I'd also add that there is a world of difference between being aged 13 and being aged 16.


 
I wasn't aiming to change your mind. The bloke in question must have been knocking on 30 at the time btw.
I was just trying to put it forward the point of that girl really - not saying its right more just that the waters around the sexuality of teenage girls are somewhat murky.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I wasn't aiming to change your mind. The bloke in question must have been knocking on 30 at the time btw.
> I was just trying to put it forward the point of that girl really - not saying its right more just that the waters around the sexuality of teenager girls are somewhat murky.


I think the problem with the "ALL FUCKED UP" mindset is that it generalises to such an extent that the actual lived experiences of the people involved are lost. Even if it is "all fucked up", it's fairly appalling to see the reaction when people like you relate those actual experiences and are told, in essence, that your perception of it is wrong or invalid.

I'm not even sure that it's that the waters are "murky" when it comes to the sexuality of teenage girls, just that they are not this kind of Victorian-angel pure that our culture and popular preconception like to paint them as being - the waters aren't crystal clear, for sure, but they're also complex, with ripples and eddies that aren't obvious. And, when such an aspect is so grossly misrepresented, the effect is to push everything that doesn't conform to the simplistic stereotypes into the shadows, where the potential for harm becomes much, much greater, because it isolates and invalidates the experience of those who don't fit the stereotype.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I have no problem at all in stating that Page's relationship with Maddox was incredibly wrong and sick.



Especially when it happened _after_ Bowie?

Never mind, Dave had probly loosened her up a bit by then... would've lessened the trauma somewhat.

Maybe Page's defence would be 'Well it's not like she was a virgin or anything... she was well used to Pop Star cock by the time I got to her.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> So then your question should be are there any more grown women now who've come forward and admitted Bowie fucked them when they were kids ?
> 
> Not yet. So far just the one has admitted Bowie drugged and fucked her when she was a child of 13 .
> 
> ...



I've already said that if more women come forward I'll reconsider my position. You're the one whose gone from "there definitely loads of instances" to "I could name names but shan't" then "there's probably more than one" and finally rested on "you'll be sorry when the names come out". You grasp of the facts and your willingness to abuse them to suit your position suggests you could find work as a sub editor on a particularly vile red top tabloid


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

Drugs. Let's talk about the drugs. X "plied" Y with drugs, they keep saying.

Surely a large part of *the point * of hanging out with rock stars was access to drugs?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 12, 2016)

1927 said:


> Innocent unless proven guilty? I don't recall Savile's trial!


You saying Saville doesn't deserve the bad press?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 12, 2016)

Sweet FA said:


> I remember that - it seemed fucked up when I read it 20 odd years ago. She gets taken in by a biker gang at one point.


I remember that as well, and it read like it was deliberately written as a warning.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> Drugs. Let's talk about the drugs. X "plied" Y with drugs, they keep saying.
> 
> Surely a large part of *the point * of hanging out with rock stars was access to drugs?



Even more of a reason not to do any plying I would have thought, especially with the knowledge that the plying will make it easier to have sex with the child.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> A 13 year old child . 8dens telling fibs again . Lori Maddox was 13 years old when Bowie got at her . 8den is actually justifying grown men drugging and fucking 13 year old kids .
> 
> He just did that, lots of times . Might be time for me to name him after another well known broadcaster .


Just being devil's advocate here but Lori's account seems to say that Sable was the one to initiate the drug taking and really drove the desire to have sex with the rock stars.

When we hear 'underage sex' the image that comes to mind is of a 50 year old nonce hanging around the girls' school inviting them to 'come and see some puppies' and that was clearly not the case. Lori also states that she felt that she was 'the last virgin' at her school. I take that at face value. It doesn't mean the other schoolgirls were sleeping with older men.

But, whilst Lori seems to have come out of the experience unscathed, Sable did not, attempting suicide and narrowly escaping psychiatric hospital.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

Wish I'd just stuck to the cologne thread, that was bad enough.
If I can say this without being misunderstood as an apologist for paedophiles .. I was an absolute nightmare as a 15ish year old girl, to say I had agency would be an understatement. Still, luckily for me, the grown up men I fancied at the time ran away politely but really fast (perhaps in part due to it not being the 70s).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

tendril said:


> Just being devil's advocate here but Lori's account seems to say that Sable was the one to initiate the drug taking and really drove the desire to have sex with the rock stars.
> 
> When we hear 'underage sex' the image that comes to mind is of a 50 year old nonce hanging around the girls' school inviting them to 'come and see some puppies' and that was clearly not the case. Lori also states that she felt that she was 'the last virgin' at her school. I take that at face value. It doesn't mean the other schoolgirls were sleeping with older men.
> 
> But, whilst Lori seems to have come out of the experience unscathed, Sable did not, attempting suicide and narrowly escaping psychiatric hospital.


i don't know if you recall this thread Barrister criticised for calling child abuse victim 'predatory'

the thing is, IT DOESN'T MATTER who initiated the drug taking and really drove the desire to have sex with the rock stars. it doesn't matter if a 13, 14, or dare i say even 15 year auld throws herself at a 30 year auld man: the criminal responsibility rests with the man. the driver here may have been the status of the rock stars, but there's a clear power disparity here which people like page and bowie enjoyed and took advantage of. what the girls could have considered is, why if he's such a star isn't he shagging 17, 18, 19 year aulds instead of us? frankly it's perhaps because more energy might have been expended to get them into bed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

sim667 said:


> You saying Saville doesn't deserve the bad press?


vile, awful, not ville, town.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> IT DOESN'T MATTER who initiated the drug taking.



And it's every adult's duty to refuse.

The denial of any agency to teens by at least one poster remains very deeply disturbing. These people shouldn't be allowed near children either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> And it's every adult's duty to refuse.
> 
> The denial of any agency to teens by at least one poster remains very deeply disturbing. These people shouldn't be allowed near children either.


yes. i remember when i was 19 a 14 year auld girl threw herself at me: being below 16 she was too young and i rebuffed her - although when some years later when i met her again when she was 19 matters had, i felt, changed.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

It's funny how things can become 'normal' when you are exposed to them often enough. I look back at episodes in my life that I took in my stride but would, I suspect, be much viewed much differently these days.

When I worked on the Holiday camp (mid 1980's) there was a lad there called Mark. He was a 23-year old ex-Para (which made for interesting conversations with the two lads from the Bogside who worked behind the Bar. They could discuss various riots they had been at - on opposite sides). Mark was a 'ladies man' who revelled in his rep as a silver-tongued Cockney wide-boy (Well he was from Essex).

Anyways I was in Mark's chalet one day having a smoke and asked him where the ashtray was. He said 'Under the bed'. As the glass ashtray slid out, a sheet of A4 paper came out with it. He clocked what it was and made a grab for it, but too late. It had 37 girls names on it, with dates and (somewhat more disturbingly) their ages. He also had a little system of marks which denoted what he had done with them. 37 names, maybe 13/14 weeks into the season. I recognised more than a few as being amongst the most sought after girls on the Staff (all 18+ including some in their late 20's... mostly staff, one or two performers ) but more than a dozen were punters aged 16.

I asked what was the craic with the dates and he replied that he kept a record 'In case I get a dose so I can trace it back'.

'What about the ages?' I asked, unconvinced.

'I just like to know'

'How do you know they're actually 16?' he laughed and replied that he just asked them - and confirmed it with their family, whether that was siblings or their parents. Obviously he never asked 'Is it OK if I shag yer daughter?' but his position as a holiday host (Bluecoat) meant he spoke with lots of families every day and his enquiries about ther various ages would seem innocent enough. He said he had a strict rule that he never shagged anyone under 16 but openly admitted that his 'policy' was more to do with self-preservation than morals.

My jaw was kind of on the floor by this stage but I persevered with the next question... "What about these six (one was 17 I think, the rest 16-yr olds) with the circled 'V' beside them?' He cheerily agreed these were all virgins - or at least claimed to be.

I was more than a bit wtf about all this but he saw nothing wrong with it - at all. He said that his family had always gone to Pontins/Butlins as kids, that his sisters and loads of their mates had all 'popped their cherry', often with Bluecoats/Redcoats, on holiday camps, usually on what would be their last family holiday before they were old enough to go away with their mates. He reckoned he - and everyone else he went with/met over the years saw it as a rite of passage. He twigged early on as a teenager that he and his mates were only getting what was left after the Holiday Hosts had had their pick (or 'sloppy seconds' as he charmingly put it) so he had vowed that one day he would be the one getting to choose. Hence his new career.

'Look mate. They've come here for cock. End of. And I'm the man to give it to 'em.' His attitude was he was somehow doing them a favour. That they were determined to get shagged anyway and it might as well be with someone who knew 'what the fuck they were doing'. And anyway their ambition was to lose their virginity to a Bluecoat and who was he to deny them. He was also adamant and proud that he 'always wore Johnnies'. Again I suspect that this was more to do with self-preservation than concern for the girls but in his model of the world he was doing nothing wrong. In fact, he would not even concede it was all a bit iffy. Anybody who objected was 'just jealous'.

I pointed out that I wasn't jealous and that he was surrounded by loads of girls 18+ who were on their own (season-long) voyage of sexual discovery and there was no shortage of single Mums (The Gingerbread Club had a block booking on a whole row of Chalets) who were looking for drink and sex. Why could he not shag them? He said he shagged them as well, but he simply 'liked them young... and innocent'. 'Popping Cherries' was a perk of the job as far as he was concerned and had been for generations. He said I should be at it myself. I replied that maybe if I was 18 I would be. But I wasn't 18. I was 22 and that was too old to be chasing 16-yr olds, especially when there was so much sex, freely available with girls more my own age.

He also pointed out that his boss was doing the same thing to (or in their model of the world 'for') lots of young boys. Again it was seen as a perk of the job.

What the previous Season's lifeguard had done (shagging a 15-yr old all week then 'flipping her over and doing her up the gary' on the last night was IHO 'bang out of order and the cunt deserved what he got cos he was taking the piss'. Story was the 19-yr old in question was arrested and walked the length of the Staff chalets in handcuffs and tears.

I could write a book about the sexual/interpersonal shenanigans in my two seasons there. Maybe one day I will.

I dunno what the point of this post is really. Maybe it's if he (as a small-scale 'Pop-star' with the sexual morals of an tomcat) could get his head around not shagging underage girls, maybe genuine Rock Stars should not find it that difficult. Or maybe he just didn't think he'd get away with it?

That last bit is maybe a little unkind - as in he had drawn his line and would not cross it.

I lost touch with him afterwards but he did get back in touch in the early 2000's - when Friends Reunited was a thing. He was 'birded up for years' (ironically enough with a woman well older than him) and all that was 'ancient history'. He didn't even play the field these days.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> And it's every adult's duty to refuse.
> 
> The denial of any agency to teens by at least one poster remains very deeply disturbing. These people shouldn't be allowed near children either.


I do hope you realise that I am not defending what happened.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wish I'd just stuck to the cologne thread, that was bad enough.
> If I can say this without being misunderstood as an apologist for paedophiles .. I was an absolute nightmare as a 15ish year old girl, to say I had agency would be an understatement. Still, luckily for me, the grown up men I fancied at the time ran away politely but really fast (perhaps in part due to it not being the 70s).


Well said. This discussion can quickly develop into a situation where if you aren't actively vilifying what happened you are seen as an apologist


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I was 22 and that was too old to be chasing 16-yr olds, especially when there was so much sex, freely available with girls more my own age.


 
Seriously? I wasnt the slightest bit interested in boys my age at 16 - I went after guys in their 20s and didnt have any problems getting then either. I dont think I was THAT unusual.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

tendril said:


> Well said. This discussion can quickly develop into a situation where if you aren't actively vilifying what happened you are seen as an apologist


sadly, it is almost always what happens on such threads.  The women get ignored (ohh, the irony) and any bloke who says anything other then 'men who fuck kids are scum' are told they are excusing abuse.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know if you recall this thread Barrister criticised for calling child abuse victim 'predatory'



And THAT is exactly the point, isn't it? There was nobody on that thread looking for 'nuance'. Nobody dared venture a view that 'She was no ordinary teenager'. 

The one person who dared to write _"on the thread's original topic -* regardless of the lawyers' utterly inappropriate, wrong and rage-inducing use of words (and the attitudes they portray)* - I hate to be That Person, but honestly if half I have heard about the case is true, then its full reality really is a bit more complicated - including evaluations of how far defendant is himself vulnerable (learning difficulties etc.) "_ was immediately labelled 'an apologist'. I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

But this fella wasn't a cultural icon was he? that's kind of the whole point of this thread.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> If I can say this without being misunderstood as an apologist for paedophiles .. I was an absolute nightmare as a 15ish year old girl, to say I had agency would be an understatement. Still, luckily for me, the grown up men I fancied at the time ran away politely but really fast (perhaps in part due to it not being the 70s).


I think a large part of the issue is conflating the desires of teenagers and the desires of adults.

It is not unusual and generally quite understandable for teenagers to want to do adult things, but sometimes it's not always wise or healthy to let them. While many teenagers may be able to cope with activities perceived as more 'mature' than their years, others aren't; that's where it all gets murky and generally the law, at least, errs on the side of caution.

The problem comes when adults are seen to be exploiting those teenage desires to satisfy their own desires. Allowing your underage teenager to have a beer every now and again or drive your car round an empty parking lot is generally different to letting a teenager have sex with you. Where everyone draws the line between age differences and what is or isn't exploitation is where we get into conflicts.

Sorry if all that seems like stating the bleeding obvious, it just feels like some of it is getting forgotten/missed as tempers flare and emotions get riled.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> Seriously? I wasnt the slightest bit interested in boys my age at 16 - I went after guys in their 20s and didnt have any problems getting then either. I dont think I was THAT unusual.



OK felixthecat . Maybe I should expand on that and explain myself properly. It's not just about their ages.

We were holiday hosts/Bluecoats. That meant we were in a relative position of power and authority. It was all a bit mad tbh. I used to sign maybe 2-300 autographs a week! Lots of young girls would buy a professionally-taken photo of their favourite Bluecoats for us to sign.

Maybe this was something I was more aware of than him. My job (sports) meant I was involved mostly with younger kids or sporty teens and their parents, whereas Mark's centered around being the main ladies man/charmer on the night-time circuit.

My whole job was to encourage tough little kids and teenagers to relax enough that they could actually behave like the young kids they were, instead of of the little hardcases their hometown/estate demanded they be. I did this very successfully and to this day this remains probably the most rewarding job I have ever had.

To do this I had to build a level of trust, with the kids and their parents. In my model of the world, having spent all week making them feel comfortable enough to 'act their age' and to engage with the younger kids as leaders, I could not then hop the fence of a night time and target the older teens as sexual conquests. That would be a cunts trick.

Mark on the other hand _only_ really engaged with them at night - when they were all made-up, dressed-to-kill etc. His time was spent flirting with girls and their mums. It was his job. Thus we could look at the same teenage girl and see two completely different things.

I was often propositioned by the older teens. I never had sex with any of them. I once gave a 16-yr old a snog backstage after the last-night show when I was pissed, but nothing more. That incident made me much more careful in how much/how little I engaged with the younger girls once I was pissed - which, like everybody else, was most nights tbf.

I did once dig myself a huge hole, much to the hilarious delight of my fellow DJ, when I declined such an invitation... in what I thought to be a very thoughtful, polite and considerate fashion... only for it all to nearly blow up big time. But that's another story.

Me and Mark were both aware that we were in a position of power. I felt he abused his. I didn't really judge him on it, especially not at the time. We are all working with what we've got and in his model of the world, viewed through the prism of his own life experience, there was nothing wrong with what he was doing.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.


So? What's your point? I genuinely don't know what you are arguing here.  However it reads as if his occupation makes a difference - and the fact that the child in this case was possibly looking for fame also makes it different. Is that what you are really saying??


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> Seriously? I wasnt the slightest bit interested in boys my age at 16 - I went after guys in their 20s and didnt have any problems getting then either. I dont think I was THAT unusual.


Pretty sure you weren't. Remembering back to when I was a 16 year old, most girls my age who had boyfriends had boyfriends older than them. Girls mature earlier than boys. It's a problem when you're a teenage boy - a frustrated teenage virgin boy like I was!


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

tendril said:


> Well said. This discussion can quickly develop into a situation where if you aren't actively vilifying what happened you are seen as an apologist



from the OP



LiamO said:


> Posters who ventured that 'things were different back then' have basically been called apologists for noncery on here. I wonder would any of those who wailed the loudest turn up on either of the Bowie RIP threads with a somewhat more nuanced view?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> It wasn't okay to have sex with young teenagers in the 60s or 70s. These were not cultural norms.


Absolutely. Public perceptions of child abuse are drastically different now, we use a different language, we understand the institutional background of abuse in terms of schools, the church and the like.  However there was just as much clarity in the 60s and 70s.  It was just as illegal and both families and communities had just as much revulsion as there is now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Absolutely. Public perceptions of child abuse are drastically different now, we use a different language, we understand the institutional background of abuse in terms of schools, the church and the like.  However *there was just as much clarity in the 60s and 70s*.  It was just as illegal and both families and communities had just as much revulsion as there is now.


Was there? Have you seen the teen mags trashpony linked to?

Also, more recently: Bill Wyman. I'm old enough to remember him and Mandy Smith in the papers and on the telly together. That couldn't happen today.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was there? Have you seen the teen mags trashpony linked to?


Are they any more of an example of the norms of 1972 as the sidebar lusting after children in the DM online are of 2016?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Absolutely. Public perceptions of child abuse are drastically different now, we use a different language, we understand the institutional background of abuse in terms of schools, the church and the like.  However there was just as much clarity in the 60s and 70s.  It was just as illegal and both families and communities had just as much revulsion as there is now.



Dunno about that tbh Wilf.

Lot's of what passed for a bit of banter/was everyday commonplace back then would cause a very loud silence if someone blurted it out in the canteen/pub these days.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was there? Have you seen the teen mags trashpony linked to?
> 
> Also, more recently: Bill Wyman. I'm old enough to remember him and Mandy Smith in the papers and on the telly together. That couldn't happen today.



Most people thought Wyman was a disgusting pervert.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Most people thought Wyman was a disgusting pervert.


Did they? Yet they were invited on tv or to photo shoots, and given positive write-ups. To repeat, that couldn't happen today.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was there? Have you seen the teen mags trashpony linked to?



To be fair the publication, based in LA, lasted for five motnhs, consisted of five issues and is described by the person who has put them on line as an  'impossibly rare groupie mag'; so _Star_ magazine may not be the best indicator of 1970's UK public attitudes to child abuse.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

Louis MacNeice said:


> To be fair the publication, based in LA, lasted for five motnhs, consisted of five issues and is described by the person who has put them on line as an  'impossibly rare groupie mag'; Star magazine may not be the best indicator of 1970's UK public attitudes to child abuse.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


No, it's an indicator of a disturbing sub-culture in LA at the time. But it's still a challenge to the idea that notions remain unchanged.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Dunno about that tbh Wilf.
> 
> Lot's of what passed for a bit of banter/was everyday commonplace back then would cause a very loud silence if someone blurted it out in the canteen/pub these days.


I agree with you about the spectrum of public 'discussion', all the way from carry on films, comedian's riffs through to canteen banter, as you say.  There were differences - and in _some ways_ we are judging the past from the perspective of the present.  And as you and others have said, there needs to be nuance in this discussion.  However I think there was still a definite revulsion within communities - and certainly within families - where an adult was having sex with someone significantly under 16 (other than the 15 year with a 17 year old type scenario that has been mentioned).


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Most people thought Wyman was a disgusting pervert.



Did they? 

I was working on that holiday camp that summer (or the next one) and whilst calling the bingo (in a roomful of working-class families) I often said "Lucky for some... certainly was for Bill Wyman... THIRTEEN!". Some belly-laughed, some sniggered, some took a little intake of breath as it was 'close to the bone' and I'm sure some were not too impressed - but nobody pulled me on it. Ever. 

Do that now and you'd be lynched.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they? Yet they were invited on tv or to photo shoots, and given positive write-ups. To repeat, that couldn't happen today.



He was on the front page of the papers with her precisely because the relationship was shocking. Were they on Wogan together? I have a dim memory they might have been.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they? Yet they were invited on tv or to photo shoots, and given positive write-ups. To repeat, that couldn't happen today.


From what I remember there was public astonishment about Wyman's behaviour - and also some astonishment that he wasn't arrested.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

That was probably after he had 'legitimised' the whole sordid affair by marrying her when she turned 16.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

lest we forget alan clark, who married his wife when she was 16 and he 30.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

In the 1970s there were still many very vocal people for whom the worst thing about rock stars was not that they were having sex with 13-year olds, but that they were having sex outside marriage. 

That makes  huge difference to attitudes. And it makes it easier to appreciate that there were others for whom the age of consent was like a road speed limit. Including, as noted, tabloids into the 90s.

(And it's a sad state of affairs in which, having written that, I have to affirm that no, I wasn't in either group.)


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Couldn't see this getting made these days... and couldn't imagine the abuse you'd get if you went to see it. But at the time it was an apparently hilarious comedy.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> In the 1970s there were still many very vocal people for whom the worst thing about rock stars was not that they were having sex with 13-year olds, but that they were having sex outside marriage.
> 
> That makes  huge difference to attitudes. And it makes it easier to appreciate that there were others for whom the age of consent was like a road speed limit. Including, as noted, tabloids into the 90s.
> 
> (And it's a sad state of affairs in which, having written that, I have to affirm that no, I wasn't in either group.)


On the surface you get "you know Father, there is a wonderful air of chastity and devotion to our lord amongst our young men."

Behind the scenes, though, it's more like "nudge-nudge, wink-wink, we're all men of the world here aren't we lads".


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I've already said that if more women come forward I'll reconsider my position. You're the one whose gone from "there definitely loads of instances" to "I could name names but shan't" then "there's probably more than one" and finally rested on "you'll be sorry when the names come out". You grasp of the facts and your willingness to abuse them to suit your position suggests you could find work as a sub editor on a particularly vile red top tabloid



No I haven't . You've completely made all that shit up, you fucking nonce apologist .

I haven't read maddoxs book, I've absolutely no interest in it. But I read hammer of the gods , about zeppelin . And quite a few of those on the groupie scene died tragically young . Often thanks to heroin .

And not everyone who realises as an adult they were sexually exploited by adults as a child cares to talk about it. Or is indeed able . Teenage groupies, children, we're camped out outside the doors of these musicians during their tours. There was an anonymous mass constantly on that scene . Maddox was simply the most famous . It's highly likely there was more than one for those who demonstrated a penchant in that direction . Which Bowie did . Sadly.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they? Yet they were invited on tv or to photo shoots, and given positive write-ups. To repeat, that couldn't happen today.



Or to be more correct his pr people arranged it in the face of quite a bit of public outrage. That's how that works.

Fuck me it was probably Max Clifford who set the while interview thing up .

And let's remember who was running tv in those days .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> No I haven't . You've completely made all that shit up, you fucking nonce apologist .
> 
> I haven't read maddoxs book, I've absolutely no interest in it. But I read hammer of the gods , about zeppelin . And quite a few of those on the groupie scene died tragically young . Often thanks to heroin .
> 
> And not everyone who realises as an adult they were sexually exploited by adults as a child cares to talk about it. Or is indeed able . Teenage groupies, children, we're camped out outside the doors of these musicians during their tours. There was an anonymous mass constantly on that scene . Maddox was simply the most famous . It's highly likely there was more than one for those who demonstrated a penchant in that direction . Which Bowie did . Sadly.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Wilf said:


> From what I remember there was public astonishment about Wyman's behaviour - and also some astonishment that he wasn't arrested.



Dunno about astonishment. I remember lots of sniggering and 'jammy bastard'-ing.

Same with Gary Glitter - in the days when his prediliction for teens was, just like Savile,  still the phwoar/ nudge-nudge  mask behind which they hid (in plain sight)  their real pederasty.

IIRC there was a double page NOTW expose on his sexual dalliance with a 14-year old (the one he later married(?) and was subsequently convicted of shagging). It was complete with gory details of how he never shagged her cos he respected her so much, but had her pull down her knickers and bend over a tree while he pulled himself off.

All in Britains family Favourite!


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> No I haven't . You've completely made all that shit up, you fucking nonce apologist .


You've overshot a bit there


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Maddox was 13 ffs

13 !!!! And a virgin. She wasn't sexually mature or worldly wise or any of that shit . She was 13 and he gave her drugs and then fucked her . And it wasn't ok. Roman polanskis been on the hop from the law for the exact same thing for decades now .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

She was 14. And given that the only account we have of this happening is from her, you really ought to read her account of it before commenting in detail on what happened, no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She was 14. And given that the only account we have of this happening is from her, you really ought to read her account of it before commenting in detail on what happened, no?


13, 14 - i don't understand why you quibble so. it's not like the former's really bad and the latter's really good, is it?


----------



## youngian (Jan 12, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Spain's AoC is 16 now. They increased it. Many of the countries with seemingly low AoC's also have laws that the guy has to be within (for example) 3 years of the age of the girl.


Holland's seemingly low age of consent is more about the law not interfering in teenage relationships if the parents don't object. Families can still report predatory older males if they deem the relationship with a child under 16 as inappropriate.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Let's leave aside a lot of things here. You have evidence that there were more girls than Maddox?




Ha..you edited that to " girls " after I pulled you up on it.

It's good you accept they weren't " women now ". That's progress . I feel like a counsellor or something .


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Maddox was 13 ffs
> 
> 13 !!!! And a virgin. She wasn't sexually mature or worldly wise or any of that shit . She was 13 and he gave her drugs and then fucked her . And it wasn't ok. Roman polanskis been on the hop from the law for the exact same thing for decades now .


Ah now, hang on, didn't Polanski give his victims drugs that actually rendered her unconscious. I've not changed my mind about what Bowie did, but there's no call for conflating his case with that of much worse people.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

Considering Liam's express purpose was to have a discussion which avoided the dismissal of nuanced arguments as nonce apologism, don't you think throwing accusations of nonce apologism around is a bit off?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Ah now, hang on, didn't Polanski give his victims drugs that actually rendered her unconscious. I've not changed my mind about what Bowie did, but there's no call for conflating his case with that of much worse people.




Maddoxs tolerance for drugs as a child compared to polanskis victim shouldn't be an issue. She was drugged to be more compliant . He was an adult, he knew what he was at .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> 13, 14 - i don't understand why you quibble so. it's not like the former's really bad and the latter's really good, is it?


Accuracy. Something CR doesn't seem bothered by, given that he's making up what happened rather than reading the one account there is to go on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Accuracy. Something CR doesn't seem bothered by, given that he's making up what happened rather than reading the one account there is to go on.


tbh i wonder who else he was shagging between 3/3/1973 and 7/4/1973


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

This sets the scene:
_"In 1972, at a nightclub in LA, rockstar Jimmy Page laid eyes on Lori Maddox, a 14 year old girl.  Maddox’s personal accounts in the unauthorized biography of Led Zeppelin, Hammer of the Gods, claim that Page told his tour manager, Richard Cole, to ‘kidnap’ her and take her to the West Hollywood hotel the band was staying in.  Maddox admits to being kept under lock-and-key, presumably to keep 29-year-old Page from being imprisoned for child sexual abuse.  In Hammer of the Gods, Maddox describes having fallen in love with Page almost instantly.  Page and Maddox “dated” for months afterwards, until Page left Maddox for Bebe Buell, who was of legal age at the time.


Lori Maddox’s best friend, Sable Starr, has been linked to many of 1970’s biggest rockstars.  In Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, Ron Asheton of the Stooges remembers Starr fondly:


“We had a gig at the Whiskey A-Go-Go when we first moved out there and that’s when we met Sable Starr, who was a really nice girl.  First she was Iggy’s groupie, then with me, then would go back to Iggy, then back to me, then would go to my brother and back to me.  We would do two sets at the Whiskey and in between sets, Sable would say, ‘Can I suck your dick?’ She was real open about that stuff, that’s what I always liked about her.  So in between sets Sable would suck my dick in the upstairs men’s bathroom.”_

Apparently Sable Starr was 14 to Ron Ashton's 25. Iggy Pop also endulged, and she finaly ended up with Johnny Thunders. 

Iggy's lyrics:   
_I slept with Sable when she was 13,
Her parents were too rich to do anything,
She rocked her way around LA
‘Til a New York Doll carried her away…_

No matter how willingly all concerned may or may not have entered into these arrangements, they are, to my mind unquestionably abusive. The first step to eradicating these attitudes in the future, is to give no amnesty to what has happened in the past. To do so is to forget, and to forgive. And those responsible have not even had the decency to ask forgiveness.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Accuracy. Something CR doesn't seem bothered by, given that he's making up what happened rather than reading the one account there is to go on.



She was 14 when she was with page. Virtually every account I've read states she was 13 when she was Bowie .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Accuracy. Something CR doesn't seem bothered by, given that he's making up what happened rather than reading the one account there is to go on.


tell you what, why not read '14' for every '13' in Casually Red's posts and then everyone will be if not happy then less fussed.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Was there? Have you seen the teen mags trashpony linked to?



bizarrely, much of the actual text in them looked actually quite reasonable - if you ignore the context they are putting it in (ie 'catching' an older man).  An awful lot of it is fairly common sense stuff you'd now see in Jackie, or its like - be confident in yourself, dont let boys bully you, pursue your dreams (not just of a sexual nature).

I'm sure there are dodgier sections in some of the many many pages I didn't read, but the above is illustrative of the times. It wasn't _just _about older men trying to use younger women and girls, it was a time when young people (adult and children) were having a taste of freedom for the first time, the shackles of fifties/early sixties conservatism had been thrown off, and many of the sexual mores rightly rejected. The whole question of what is a 'child' was thrown up, quite rightly. The voting age had just been lowered, homosexuality legalised, and the whole question of what an appropriate age of consent was up in the air. It was almost the first time that teenagers - any teenager - was seen to be allowed to have 'agency' of their own (not that they'd have said 'agency' back then). For many people at the time,if a young person said they wanted X or Y, then they should be seen as old enough to make that judgement, and it wasn't up to the oldies to deny them their rights.  Of course we now rightly see that as far too simplistic, and open to abuse. Which is why mores continued to change over the next decade.

Just on the whole age of consent malarkey - it should also be remembered that the age - whatever age is chosen, whether its 14, 16 or 18 - is the age when it is presumed _most _young people have achieved the relevant maturity.  It has to be, nothing magically happens on the event of your (whatever) birthday. And that means that it is undeniable that some young people _will have_ the maturity to make those decisions at an earlier age.  

None of which excuses the men who exploited those changes in morality, but just to note that that happened, and that there is a difference between those predatory males (like Rodney Bingenheimer) who organised exploitation and abuse, and those, like Bowie seems to have, who simply 'went long with it.'  Both are wrong, but one is a fuck sight worse than the other.

Just on Bowie - I think this blog makes some very interesting points - David Bowie was wonderful. He was also an abuser. How do we handle that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> She was 14 when she was with page. Virtually every account I've read states she was 13 when she was Bowie .


tbh i checked and she was born 11/11/1958; she first meets bowie in october 1972 but the intercourse takes place at some point between 3/3/1973 and 7/4/1973: tour dates - Ziggy Stardust Tour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Couldn't see this getting made these days... and couldn't imagine the abuse you'd get if you went to see it. But at the time it was an apparently hilarious comedy.



Actually, it's just been remade. Or, more precisely, there is a remake of the French original it was based on.

Also, it was almost universally panned when it came out, it certainly wasn't seen as hilarious.

Other films that spring to mind - Rita, Sue & Bob Too - seen as something of a kitchen sink Brit classic. Diary of a Teenage Girl - San Francisco in the early seventies, they may even go and see Iggy.  Both films that explore teenage girls burgeoning sexuality via their interactions with older men, and neither is entirely disapproving.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> This sets the scene:
> _Lori Maddox’s best friend, Sable Starr, has been linked to many of 1970’s biggest rockstars.  In Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, Ron Asheton of the Stooges remembers Starr fondly:_
> 
> Iggy's lyrics:
> ...



So is this the smoking gun 8den demanded?

Fuck it. I can't c&p from that site. just click on the 'remembers Starr fondly" link and it takes you to the account of Sable Starr -  another 'legendary' underage groupie - of shagging Bowie. And of _him_ seeking _her_ out, rather than the other way around., ,


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> So is this the smoking gun 8den demanded?


difficult to find a rhyme for 12 i suppose


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> difficult to find a rhyme for 12 i suppose


Delve? A particularly posh valve?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

Lord Camomile said:


> Delve? A particularly posh valve?


yeh. but 1) try working that into a song; & 2) the only lyrick i can think of involving 'delve' dates from 1381. not a common word in los angeles in the 1970s.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> difficult to find a rhyme for 12 i suppose


'13' and 'anything' is already a bit of a stretch, rhymewise


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but 1) try working that into a song; & 2) the only lyrick i can think of involving 'delve' dates from 1381. not a common word in los angeles in the 1970s.


Hey, they're the fucking artists, not me.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Okay. So you can't name any other women?
> 
> I merely ask because many posters have eluded to it, but 18 plus pages later here we are with just the one.



This was not a one off, 3 other girls reflect here, and a magazine dedicated to the whole culture of it:
Diamonds From The Mine: The New Generation of Groupies


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> 2) the only lyrick i can think of involving 'delve' dates from 1381.


Run, Christian, Run by the Super Furry Animals:

And bang on the hour of twelve
To a forest clearing we'll delve


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Other films that spring to mind - Rita, Sue & Bob Too - seen as something of a kitchen sink Brit classic. Diary of a Teenage Girl - San Francisco in the early seventies, they may even go and see Iggy.  Both films that explore teenage girls burgeoning sexuality via their interactions with older men, and neither is entirely disapproving.



I thought Rita, Sue and Bob too' was hilarious. Haven't watched in many years though. And certainly not as 'iffy' as 'Blame it on Rio'


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I thought Rita, Sue and Bob too' was hilarious. Haven't watched in many years though. And certainly not as 'iffy' as 'Blame it on Rio'


No, I'd agree, I suspect that is largely because RS&BT is centred on the girls, not the men, and because it was written by a woman.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> difficult to find a rhyme for 12 i suppose



14 or 15 rhyme with 'anything' about as much as 13.

Anyways. read the link. That's what I was on about.

8den said if anyone could find another girl he would flip his switch and condemn Bowie. Wonder how he will wriggle out of fulfilling on that public commitment?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Run, Christian, Run by the Super Furry Animals:
> 
> And bang on the hour of twelve
> To a forest clearing we'll delve


they might have been better advised to say either noon or the midnight hour and go from there.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

From the comments section after the last link I posted, a former groupie writes:

Bill LuckyJuly 21, 2015 at 12:33 PM

This is Susan, not Bill and I was one of those 13 year olds who slept with 30 yr old musicians, None so famous,BUT< what was weird, is that it was a socail model. As if the oppression of sex and women stemming from the Victorian age and before, finally, with the onset of Birth Control, allowed women to become sexually active. THE MISSING piece was that we were not women, we were children and speaking for myself, if these guys would have been willing to hang out with me, like they did with men, I would have been just as happy, The sex was the only way they were willikng to connect with me, I'm not sure if this is a legal matter as much as a social one. I'd LOVE to be able to talk to the very famous men, and ask, with no threat of legal action, how they feel about that behaviour today. Are they regretful....I have actuallhy spoken to one of the men I slept with, who will remain anonymous, but he was well known in the late 60s and his band is remembered will today. He was charmig and apologetic and asked if I was (at now 50) ok? He admitted it was the times and though not justifying the behaviour, he could see that we was swept up in it and never questioned the long term effect it might have on us young girls. I hope this helps give some insight in to the experience....I am ok, REALLY ok, but I did have to do some real therapy and self exploration, Some self forgiveness that I didn't take better care of me, even at the age of 13 and some serious forgivemess to my mom, for allowing me to run the streets at such a young age......


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> 8den said if anyone could find another girl he would flip his switch and condemn Bowie. Wonder how he will wriggle out of fulfilling on that public commitment?


quite easily i suspect


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Ha..you edited that to " girls " after I pulled you up on it.
> 
> It's good you accept they weren't " women now ". That's progress . I feel like a counsellor or something .



I didn't edit it. They would be girls at the time, if they came forward now, they'd be women. I do realise that a working knowledge of grammatical tense isn't a requirement for a job as Kelvin Mc Kenzie's or Rebecca Brooks' flunky, but its tremendously helpful for everyone else to understand what you are trying to say. 

Now please continue I think you were at the frothing at the mouth hysterical screaming stage of the discussion...


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> This was not a one off, 3 other girls reflect here, and a magazine dedicated to the whole culture of it:
> Diamonds From The Mine: The New Generation of Groupies



That entire scene was organised sexual exploitation of children . And sadly Bowie was smack in the middle of it . Those children wanted to hangout with rock stars. And sadly sex, underage sex with adults, was the price they had to pay for it . Let's face it they were kids and they had nothing else to offer to be in that company .


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> quite easily i suspect



So we're at the stage that we are speculating as to how I'd react to a hypothetical?


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> This was not a one off, 3 other girls reflect here, and a magazine dedicated to the whole culture of it:
> Diamonds From The Mine: The New Generation of Groupies


she wasn't the only girl on the 'scene', but she was the only one definitively fucked by Bowie (which was 8den's point).  Queenie Glam was, according to that, 'linked with' him, but that just means they were all part of that crowd.  Maybe he fucked her too, but there doesn't seem to be anything more about him doing so (and Queenie herself seems to managed to avoid being on the internet too much, so its hard to know much more about her)


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> (and I add if that more women come forward and talk about how Bowie liked to ply underage girls with drugs and have sex with them, I will of course condemn him), but going on this one account it is, very conceivable that on this night he showed VERY poor judgment and knowingly or *unknowingly* had sex with an underage girl.



My prediction is he will say something along the lines of " I said 'liked to ply underage girls with drugs and have sex with them'. You _have_ shown that he shagged another one, having sought her out and knowing (as everyone did) that she was underage - but show me the evidence he plied this latest one with drugs"


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> she wasn't the only girl on the 'scene', but she was the only one definitively fucked by Bowie (which was 8den's point).



nope that link above takes you straight to Sable Starr's account

anyone know how to c&p or screenshot from that page?

e2a 


Lucy Fur said:


> _ remembers Starr fondly:_


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> So we're at the stage that we are speculating as to how I'd react to a hypothetical?


i see you were lying about having me on ignore.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you were lying about having me on ignore.



No deary back on tapatalk


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> My prediction is he will say something along the lines of " I said 'liked to ply underage girls with drugs and have sex with them'. You _have_ shown that he shagged another one, having sought her out and knowing (as everyone did) that she was underage - but show me the evidence he plied this latest one with drugs"



Wow. I see this thread has gone into the realms of speculative fiction...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> No deary back on tapatalk


you've always proved more dreary than deary


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Wow. I see this thread has gone into the realms of speculative fiction...



So respond.


Lucy Fur said:


> _ remembers Starr fondly:_



Now we have two. You asked for another one. You have it. respond


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Wow. I see this thread has gone into the realms of speculative fiction...


Not mine, so why not address the points raised there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> So respond.
> 
> Now we have two. You asked for another one. You have it. respond


come in 8den your time is up


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

I would anticipate radio silence. Then an explosion/diversion/attempted derail


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> nope that link above takes you straight to Sable Starr's account
> 
> anyone know how to c&p or screenshot from that page?


If your are on a computer rather than a phone just press 'print screen' and you should be able to past it into a post. 

I've done on my phone but am struggling to upload it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2016)

Sweet FA said:


> I remember that - it seemed fucked up when I read it 20 odd years ago. She gets taken in by a biker gang at one point.



I now also recall a subplot in HS Thompsons Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas where his attorney picks up an underage girl and gives her acid


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> nope that link above takes you straight to Sable Starr's account
> 
> anyone know how to c&p or screenshot from that page?


okay, I've read that bit too now. While there is always the possibility of her exaggerating her involvement in order to sell books, it does read all too plausibly. Clearly, he (Bowie) wasn't a peripheral figure.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> This was not a one off, 3 other girls reflect here, and a magazine dedicated to the whole culture of it:
> Diamonds From The Mine: The New Generation of Groupies



I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something but only one girl aside from Lori makes any reference to Bowie


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> okay, I've read that bit too now. While there is always the possibility of her exaggerating her involvement in order to sell books, it does read all too plausibly. Clearly, he (Bowie) wasn't a peripheral figure.



Wonder how 8den feels now he realises his Castle was made of sand... and the tide has come in around it.



Lucy Fur said:


> _ remembers Starr fondly:_


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something but only one girl aside from Lori makes any reference to Bowie



8den. the gift that keeps on giving 



Lucy Fur said:


> _ remembers Starr fondly:_





belboid said:


> okay, I've read that bit too now. While there is always the possibility of her exaggerating her involvement in order to sell books, it does read all too plausibly. Clearly, he (Bowie) wasn't a peripheral figure.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> _ remembers Starr fondly:_


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something but only one girl aside from Lori makes any reference to Bowie


Apparently Queenie Glam is also linked, but what I don't understand, is why the diferrence between one or two, or indeed more is important (to you)?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I would anticipate radio silence. Then an explosion/diversion/attempted derail





8den said:


> I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing something but only one girl aside from Lori makes any reference to Bowie



That's the diversion attempt done. One down, two to go.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Apparently Queenie Glam is also linked, but what I don't understand, is why the diferrence between one or two, or indeed more is important (to you)?


well, as I said, 'linked' means absolutely nothing more than 'seen in the same room as.'

The Sable Starr book is the relevant bit


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Apparently Queenie Glam is also linked, but what I don't understand, is why the diferrence between one or two, or indeed more is important (to you)?



Queenie Glam is the one I'm referring to. 

It matters as to whether Maddox was a singularly isolated regrettable incident or part of a wider pattern which I think would be more serious. 

But I suspect for 3 of Urbans most pernicious and vicious bullies this thread stopped being about Bowie several pages ago.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Hurry up 8den, I've to go to work shortly and the suspense is killing me

Bet he's sitting there like Blackadder coming up with some mental and linguistic contortion . 

" boos up " 8den remember that one ? 

Try that path . It might just work .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Queenie Glam is the one I'm referring to.
> 
> It matters as to whether Maddox was a singularly isolated regrettable incident or part of a wider pattern which I think would be more serious.
> 
> But I suspect for 3 of Urbans most pernicious and vicious bullies this thread stopped being about Bowie several pages ago.




You're being bullied ? 

Hahahahhahhaahhaahahhah


It's the jer manoeuvre !!!

Fucking brilliant


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> That's the diversion attempt done. One down, two to go.



It's not a diversion it's a request for clarification. 

A diversion would be expressing disgust and outrage that you let your mate a fucking para continue his pursuit of underage girls.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Queenie Glam is the one I'm referring to.
> 
> It matters as to whether Maddox was a singularly isolated regrettable incident or part of a wider pattern which I think would be more serious.
> 
> But I suspect for 3 of Urbans most pernicious and vicious bullies this thread stopped being about Bowie several pages ago.


Demonstrate how I have bullied you or been pernicious. Now read the link, its here for you.

_ remembers Starr fondly:
_
Proof that it was part of a wider pattern is all there. Then come back and apologise for being a complete and utter bellend.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Do you need a safe space 8den ? 

Some bubble wrap ? Candles ? Play doh ?

A Barney blankie ?

Hahahaha


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> It matters as to whether Maddox was a singularly isolated regrettable incident or part of a wider pattern which I think would be more serious.
> 
> But I suspect for 3 of Urbans most pernicious and vicious bullies this thread stopped being about Bowie several pages ago.



bit confused. is this another diversion attempt? Or is this the de-rail prior to the explosion/flounce?

And the whole fuckin thread was _never_ 'about Bowie' - it was always about the wider issues. _You _have consistently made it about Bowie. You fuckin idiot!


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Demonstrate how I have bullied you or been pernicious. Now read the link, its here for you.
> 
> _ remembers Starr fondly:
> _
> Proof that it was part of a wider pattern is all there. Then come back and apologise for being a complete and utter bellend.



3 CR, LiamO, and PM apologise for the confusion. 

I can't read that link on my phone, I'll get back to it after lunch.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> It's not a diversion it's a request for clarification.
> 
> A diversion would be expressing disgust and outrage that you let your mate a fucking para continue his pursuit of underage girls.




*None* of whom were underage. As I wrote earlier.

Come on now D4. That's three diversions or maybe one diversion and two attempted derail. You've only the explosion/flounce left to play.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> 3 CR, LiamO, and PM apologise for the confusion.
> 
> I can't read that link on my phone, I'll get back to it after lunch.



You're the only one confused. Answer Lucy Fur 's question


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Do you need a safe space 8den ?
> 
> Some bubble wrap ? Candles ? Play doh ?
> 
> ...


I should say attempted bullying. And you're really just making my point now.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> 3 CR, LiamO, and PM apologise for the confusion.
> 
> I can't read that link on my phone, I'll get back to it after lunch.



I see you edited your post to take the last sentence out (or maybe to add it).

You managed to access the other one Ok didn't you? the one you thought proved your point? But now you apparently 'can't access' the one which pisses on your picnic? Jaysus!

You are not at lunch, son, you are 'OUT to fuckin lunch'


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> 3 CR, LiamO, and PM apologise for the confusion.
> 
> I can't read that link on my phone, I'll get back to it after lunch.


fair do's, I think you will find the evidence you are looking for that this was far from a one off thing. In deed there was a culture of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> 3 CR, LiamO, and PM apologise for the confusion.
> 
> I can't read that link on my phone, I'll get back to it after lunch.


you missed out an 'i'  but apology  accepted


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Your first posts...


8den said:


> Can people just ignore LiamOs blatant trolling...





8den said:


> Because the cunt started it on a RIP thread



bit late to be playing the 'I'm being bullied' card, no?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Queenie Glam is the one I'm referring to.
> 
> It matters as to whether Maddox was a singularly isolated regrettable incident or part of a wider pattern which I think would be more serious.
> 
> But I suspect for 3 of Urbans most pernicious and vicious bullies this thread stopped being about Bowie several pages ago.




No it's still about fucking and drugging underage kids , that stuff you were defending as one off . And originally defending on the basis they were mentally up for it, mature enough, different times etc. You had a range of different defences . Now it's a regrettable incident .

Farting in front of the queen is a regrettable incident . Introducing a child to hard drugs and then fucking her while she's under the influence is a despicable incident . Regardless of who does it .

And that child was part of a recognised , well established child sex exploitation scene that was laid on by exploitative perverts for artistic dilettantes . Bowie was fully aware of what it all entailed and threw himself into it . There were no shortage of mature women vying for rock stars affections. This was something available on request after the dilettantes tired of that and wanted something a bit more exotic to whet their jaded appetites . Set up by seedy fixers .

Child sexual exploitation 8den, is what it was . Organised child sexual exploitation. Making that bluntly clear to you is not bullying . You simply shouldn't be attempting to defend it .


Eta

And I'm not bullying you. I gave you ample warning last night it would be highly unwise to go down the route of defending this stuff. And repeatedly urged you to reconsider . You were simply too arrogant to consider that advice in any manner useful .


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

To be clear. I do not agree with CR's absolutist position on this.

But I also know from my experience of him that, were Bowie not one of 8den's heroes, he would more than likely have adopted the same absolutist position


LiamO said:


> 2. Some people will cry 'where's your proof'? whilst ignoring the widely available anecdotal evidence from contemporaries. Many of these same people require no such level of proof to wade in and pontificate about those they don't like (Cliff anybody? Jim Davidson?)
> 
> 3. Posters who ventured that 'things were different back then' have basically been called apologists for noncery on here. I wonder would any of those who wailed the loudest turn up on either of the Bowie RIP threads with a somewhat more nuanced view?



from the OP


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> (in palin sight)



Is that a typo or is the Official Register of National Treasures going to be have to revised again?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

a typo.

I'll correct it.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

We haven't really come very far since the panic and confusion that followed the publication of Lolita in the 50s, have we.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> To be clear. I do not agree with CR's absolutist position on this.
> 
> But I also know from my experience of him that, were Bowie not one of 8den's heroes, he would more than likely have adopted the same absolutist position
> 
> ...




He was a hero of mine..musically wise. Difference is I accept that heroes often have feet of clay . And that it's probably a lot wiser to separate the man from the music . And I'm not going to make a cunt of myself defending child sexual exploitation.

My take on it is Bowie asked a fixer for a virgin, and Maddox was delivered for his gratification. He'd probably tried everything else and wanted more. That was how that sene was.

And like page he was a satanist and a follower of Crowley, with the dictum " do ast thou wilt " ,so all morality was clean out the window and pure self gratification was the name of the game .


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> My take on it is ....


completely fictional and without any evidence to back it up.



> And like page he was a satanist


no he wasn't


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> We haven't really come very far since the panic and confusion that followed the publication of Lolita in the 50s, have we.



Would take a brave publisher to publish that now.

Not sure that's progress.

i couldn't even imagine Sting bringing out 'Don't stand so close to me' these days. It's a brilliant song but the redtops would be straight on the case accusing him of singing out his fantasies.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Would take a brave publisher to publish that now.
> 
> Not sure that's progress.



He was turned down by all the decent publishers and signed up with a trashy French porn-merchant in the end. 
Good book though. 

("British Customs officers were then instructed by a panicked HO to seize all copies entering the United Kingdom. In December 1956, France followed suit, ..)


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> He was a hero of mine..musically wise. Difference is I accept that heroes often have feet of clay . And that it's probably a lot wiser to separate the man from the music . And I'm not going to make a cunt of myself defending child sexual exploitation.
> 
> My take on it is Bowie asked a fixer for a virgin, and Maddox was delivered for his gratification. He'd probably tried everything else and wanted more. That was how that sene was.
> 
> And like page he was a satanist and a follower of Crowley, with the dictum " do ast thou wilt " ,so all morality was clean out the window and pure self gratification was the name of the game .


Without getting too of track, Crowley was not a Satanist, and morality most certainly does not go out the window with the dictum of the Thelemist law of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." as you were.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2016)

there was a film version (not kubrik) from 1997 so its hardly explosively transgressive today. The worst part is having 'lolita' in my search history to check the films date *delete cookies*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> there was a film version (not kubrik) from 1997 so its hardly explosively transgressive today. The worst part is having 'lolita' in my search history to check the films date *delete cookies*


Changed her age from 12 to 14, though.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> He was turned down by all the decent publishers and signed up with a trashy French porn-merchant in the end.



Category:Olympia Press books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*C*

Candy (Southern and Hoffenberg novel)
*I*

Inside Scientology: How I Joined Scientology and Became Superhuman
*L*

Lolita
*N*

Naked Lunch
*Q*

Quiet Days in Clichy (novel)
*S*

The Soft Machine
Speed (novel)
*T*

The Ticket That Exploded
*W*

Watt (novel)
*Y*

Young Adam
*Z*

Zazie in the Metro
/clears cache


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

Luc Bessons "Leon" has overtones, and in the original script they became lovers, although this was rewritten in the final version.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> We haven't really come very far since the panic and confusion that followed the publication of Lolita in the 50s, have we.


Can you clarify what, in the context of this thread, you mean?


----------



## campanula (Jan 12, 2016)

I always thought Bowie was a tedious twat so easy for me to condemn but, despite the role of Roy Harper's Stormcock as a  soundscape throughout my entire adult life, I dropped it pretty damn quick on recognition of noncery. I can generally separate unpleasant characters from artistic output...but sex with underage children, with all the horrible allusions to power abuse, cowardly men seeking some sort of validation, affirmation, adoration...completely poisons past and future output from these craven swine. I could never listen to a single Peel show without the term paedophile racketing around my head and the likes of Craig Charles, however amusing my offspring found Red Dwarf, became verboten because I  am unable to dismiss vile attitudes towards powerless minors. As for 'it was different then ' this is utter, utter shite - it was never different - abuse of children, regardless of physical sexual precocity is usually an attitude of despicable, objectifying scum who regard the bodies of minors as a personal playground. This attitude trumps all artistic virtue and stains it irrevocably.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> Category:Olympia Press books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *C*
> 
> ...


several absolute crackers in there


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Are there any interviews with the men who took advantage of the Baby Groupies?  The only thing I can recall seeing was Bingenheimer excusing himself of any responsibility


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Can you clarify what, in the context of this thread, you mean?


That book, about a love affair / sex relationship between a grown up man and a young girl, remains controversial and confusing after all these years because it is not (for many people, including me) enough to just shout rapist at Nabakov and call the relationship depicted 'child abuse plain and simple' end of story. I mean you can if you want to of course.
(not a great answer i know, bit rushed)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> That book, about a love affair / sex relationship between a grown up man and a young girl, remains controversial and confusing after all these years because it is not (for many people, including me) enough to just shout rapist at Nabakov and call the relationship depicted 'child abuse plain and simple' end of story. I mean you can if you want to of course.
> (not a great answer i know, bit rushed)


But Nabokov was a writer of characters, and on this thread the discussion is of actual, real adult men fucking underage girls.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> But Nabokov was a writer of characters, and on this thread the discussion is of actual, real adult men fucking underage girls.


ok. Sorry about the derail then. As you were.


----------



## Winot (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> That book, about a love affair / sex relationship between a grown up man and a young girl, remains controversial and confusing after all these years because it is not (for many people, including me) enough to just shout rapist at Nabakov and call the relationship depicted 'child abuse plain and simple' end of story. I mean you can if you want to of course.
> (not a great answer i know, bit rushed)



I assume you mean "shout rapist at Humbert". Nabakov was the author, and it was just a story (albeit a superbly written one).


----------



## trabuquera (Jan 12, 2016)

Meanwhile, in 2016, "questions are being asked" about why rap artist Tyga (aged 25) appeared to be so very interested in commenting on a 14-yr-old's Instagram feed, and all the old arguments about 'predatory' girls who 'look much older' re-emerged yet again (Teenager, 14, rubbishes Tyga cheating claims as she breaks down on camera)

 ... And he'd already had his feet held to the media fire last year about exactly what he was doing 'dating' Kylie Jenner (then aged 17, one of the Kardashian clan) and releasing a song about it claiming "They say she young/She should have waited/ Shee a big girl, dawg, when she stimulated" ... <boaks>

And R Kelly is still not in prison. Just in case anyone thought that the "it was different  in the 70s and they'd never try it now" argument stands. It's all about fame and power and the illusion of showbiz stardust magic, and how much the general public (and girls' parents and the media and whatever) are willing to overlook for that. Turns out that it's a lot. Still.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Without getting too of track, Crowley was not a Satanist, and morality most certainly does not go out the window with the dictum of the Thelemist law of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will." as you were.



Yep. A lot of folk take "do what thou wilt" to mean "do what you like", when it's fairly obvious from Crowley's writing, and from accounts by his contemporaries that he meant "do what your will wishes you to do".
I've also seen people taking the "love under will" bit as some sort of endorsement of sexual slavery, when it's simply a call to control the power of the heart through the power of the mind.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> But Nabokov was a writer of characters, and on this thread the discussion is of actual, real adult men fucking underage girls.


"These are small, but the ones out there are far away".


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

Winot said:


> Nabakov was the author, and it was just a story (albeit a superbly written one).



That's the essence of the continuing argument about the book. Some of its defenders say that to the shouters there's no such thing as "just a story"...


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> She was 14 when she was with page. Virtually every account I've read states she was 13 when she was Bowie .



Except her own.  She was 15, not a defence of Bowie by the way but a bit disturbing the way that internet rumours and celebrity gossip are now being discussed as verified facts.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 12, 2016)

A truly fascinating discussion.

i'm from 1951 and evolved along the mod hippy cross radical peacenik left liberal industrial militant line. Taking the long view back, i'm now quite angry about some of the thinking and activities that i've engaged in over that period, and if time could be reversed i'd be quite happy to undo some of those misjudgements. 

One good example relates to an unsavoury organisation named PIE (paedophile information exchange).  There was a moment when PIE was given the 'benefit of the doubt'  by some on the Left, and unfortunately i remember engaging in a few arguments that reflected this general attitude.  Today, forty odd years later, it is easy to recognise that that situation was a disastrous and disgusting mistake.  PIE were not a legitimate body seeking to help an oppressed group of people in need of liberation - they were actually a dangerous facilitating group which included some maniacs with an intention of abusing kids.

What were those involved in all that situation thinking?  i truly don't know, i can only shake my head slowly.. They must have been partly deluded, and partly unwitting victims of the then existing radical circumstances and thirst for social change.  

Who said it best?  'The past is another country, they do things differently there'?


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> _Lori Maddox’s best friend, Sable Starr, has been linked to many of 1970’s biggest rockstars.  In Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, Ron Asheton of the Stooges remembers Starr fondly:
> _



Thats really odd because Sable's account seems to match Maddox's account right  to very specific details, right up to the guy trying to attack Bowie "I'm going Kill you".

It seems like both women are talking about the same night.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Thats really odd because Sable's account seems to match Maddox's account right  to very specific details, right up to the guy trying to attack Bowie "I'm going Kill you".
> 
> It seems like both women are talking about the same night.


Could be that one is embellishing, or both are. Or just that both have this as an honest memory, but one or both are conflating events that happened on different days. Memory is unreliable at the best of times, and I'm guessing the memory of the period was rather fuggy for both of them later on. Whatever, it's not so surprising to hear different versions of the same event told with honesty by two different people.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

redcogs said:


> A truly fascinating discussion.
> 
> i'm from 1951 and evolved along the mod hippy cross radical peacenik left liberal industrial militant line. Taking the long view back, i'm now quite angry about some of the thinking and activities that i've engaged in over that period, and if time could be reversed i'd be quite happy to undo some of those misjudgements.
> 
> ...


That was a pretty disturbing read. But yes, also surprised to learn just now that until
1929 it was fine in the uk to marry a 12 year old girl.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Could be that one is embellishing, or both are. Or just that both have this as an honest memory, but one or both are conflating events that happened on different days. Memory is unreliable at the best of times, and I'm guessing the memory of the period was rather fuggy for both of them later on. Whatever, it's not so surprising to hear different versions of the same event told with honesty by two different people.



Quite, and despite the best efforts of Larry Curly and Moe, I'm not excusing or justifying Bowie's behaviour, I'm just asking to see credible reports that this was more than just an isolated incident, before I decide that Bowie, Page were using virginal blood to communion with Aleister Crowley so they could summon Moloko or whatever the fuck Casually Red is ranting about.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 12, 2016)

redcogs said:


> What were those involved in all that situation thinking?  i truly don't know, i can only shake my head slowly.. They must have been partly deluded, and partly unwitting victims of the then existing radical circumstances and thirst for social change.
> 
> Who said it best?  'The past is another country, they do things differently there'?


Don't beat yourself up because I'm not beating myself up. Start from the place that with no video, let alone no internet, if we didn't see it on tv when it was broadcast then probably we didn't even know about it. I didn't stop in on Saturday night & watch the Black & White minstrel show, I was out caning it, as I guess you were. My take on PIE at the time was that it was part of the gay movement, I think this was the view of many. Age of consent was set at 21 for consenting men in '67, there was an ongoing campaign for equality to get the gay aoc down to 16 & that PIE was mostly part of that which is what caused it to be in the news. Many at the time were against legalisation of gay sex & were utterly outraged at the suggestion of dropping aoc to 16 to allow of 'buggering of schoolboys' as many in the media referred to it at the time.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Thats really odd because Sable's account seems to match Maddox's account right  to very specific details, right up to the guy trying to attack Bowie "I'm going Kill you".
> 
> It seems like both women are talking about the same night.


The accounts I've read of Maddox losing her virginity to Bowie make no mention of Bowie getting attacked, only in Sables account. Can you link please?
Also the book I linked to (Please Kill Me) only quotes Sable (at least in the chapter I linked too). 
But bye the bye, how do you now feel about it all, a one off, or part of a scene where such behaviour was common and encouraged, and ultimately abusive?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

trabuquera said:


> Meanwhile, in 2016, "questions are being asked" about why rap artist Tyga (aged 25) appeared to be so very interested in commenting on a 14-yr-old's Instagram feed, and all the old arguments about 'predatory' girls who 'look much older' re-emerged yet again (Teenager, 14, rubbishes Tyga cheating claims as she breaks down on camera)
> 
> ... And he'd already had his feet held to the media fire last year about exactly what he was doing 'dating' Kylie Jenner (then aged 17, one of the Kardashian clan) and releasing a song about it claiming "They say she young/She should have waited/ Shee a big girl, dawg, when she stimulated" ... <boaks>
> 
> And R Kelly is still not in prison. Just in case anyone thought that the "it was different  in the 70s and they'd never try it now" argument stands. It's all about fame and power and the illusion of showbiz stardust magic, and how much the general public (and girls' parents and the media and whatever) are willing to overlook for that. Turns out that it's a lot. Still.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

/


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Don't beat yourself up because I'm not beating myself up. Start from the place that with no video, let alone no internet, if we didn't see it on tv when it was broadcast then probably we didn't even know about it. I didn't stop in on Saturday night & watch the Black & White minstrel show, I was out caning it, as I guess you were. My take on PIE at the time was that it was part of the gay movement, I think this was the view of many. Age of consent was set at 21 for consenting men in '67, there was an ongoing campaign for equality to get the gay aoc down to 16 & that PIE was mostly part of that which is what caused it to be in the news. *Many at the time were against legalisation of gay sex & were utterly outraged at the suggestion of dropping aoc to 16 to allow of 'buggering of schoolboys' as many in the media referred to it at the time*.



That attitude persisted right up to the 2000s, right up until the law was finally equalised.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Changed her age from 12 to 14, though.



 Was she 12 in the book? I've never read it so my 'knowledge' of it is limited to Sting's reference and conversations with everyone from schoolteachers to workmates (who'd probably never read it either).


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Was she 12 in the book? I've never read it so my 'knowledge' of it is limited to Sting's reference and conversations with everyone from schoolteachers to workmates (who'd probably never read it either).


I was persuaded to. Its not some knotty tome its a poetical read in places. Humbert Humbert (the nonce, its told 1st person by him) is the best example of the unreliable narrator.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> The accounts I've read of Maddox losing her virginity to Bowie make no mention of Bowie getting attacked, only in Sables account. Can you link please?



I believe it was linked earlier on the thread, I'll look for it when I have a moment. 



> Also the book I linked to (Please Kill Me) only quotes Sable (at least in the chapter I linked too).
> But bye the bye, how do you now feel about it all, a one off, or part of a scene where such behaviour was common and encouraged, and ultimately abusive?



Ive already gone on the record earlier on the thread, stating, for example, that Page's relationship with Sable was incredibly sick and morally reprehensible.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Quite, and despite the best efforts of Larry Curly and Moe, I'm not excusing or justifying Bowie's behaviour, I'm just asking to see credible reports that this was more than just an isolated incident, before I decide that Bowie, Page were using virginal blood to communion with Aleister Crowley so they could summon Moloko or whatever the fuck Casually Red is ranting about.



CR#s absolutist position has not been particularly helpful, but you jacketing mine and Pickman's model posts in there with that Crowley is - as you already know - absolutely ingenuous. But then that's what you do, isn't it?

Are you going to answer Lucy Fur's question or not? You deliberately choose to answer questions you ghave not been asked, and in so doing ignore the ones you have been. 

Lucy Fur asked 



Lucy Fur said:


> But bye the bye, how do you now feel about it all, a one off, or part of a scene where such behaviour was common and encouraged, and ultimately abusive?




and you answered with some old guff about Page.

Just stop wriggling (if you can) and either piss or get off the pot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Ive already gone on the record earlier on the thread, stating, for example, that Page's relationship with Sable was incredibly sick and morally reprehensible.


yet bowie's was tender and caring? this smacks of that cognitive dissonance we hear so much about.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Ive already gone on the record earlier on the thread, stating, for example, that Page's relationship with Sable was incredibly sick and morally reprehensible.



Was 8den not refering to Maddox and Page?

I think I remember cos I pointed out this morning that Maddox's '_incredibly sick and morally reprehensible' _relationship'with Page began post-Bowie.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 12, 2016)

I think our attitudes to rape are understandably knee-jerk.  Rape is always, always wrong.  All rape.  Including having sex with willing underage girls.  

But rapists... Let's face it.  We allknow rapists.  We probably just don't know who they are. People who, when younger fucked hopelessly drunk people.  Or who kept putting the moves on their partner til he or she gave up protesting... And some of them went on to be better men.  Good men, in fact.  

It doesn't excuse what they did at all, but we can't fix someone in our minds as RAPIST and let that negate every other thing we think or feel about them.  There are too many rapists.  Life is too long.  People do many other terrible things... Not all people, but lots.  

And so with Bowie, and Peel we have men who did a terrible thing.  Probably, realistically, more than once. But who, as best we know, changed and stopped doing the terrible thing and spent the rest of their lives in appropriate relationships with empowered women.  Who did good things for people. Who became good men.  

But because we are rightly unequivocal about rape, I think we, as a society, find it hard to articulate complex but positive feelings about a rapist.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Yep. I was correct. 8den definitely refered to Page and Maddox, not Page and Sable. Give it up man. You're all over the place.



8den said:


> I have no problem at all in stating that Page's relationship with Maddox was incredibly wrong and sick.





LiamO said:


> Especially when it happened _after_ Bowie?
> 
> Never mind, Dave had probly loosened her up a bit by then... would've lessened the trauma somewhat.
> 
> Maybe Page's defence would be 'Well it's not like she was a virgin or anything... she was well used to Pop Star cock by the time I got to her.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Life is too long.



* steals *


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2016)

isn't it true that the woman in question doesn't regard it as rape?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> isn't it true that the woman in question doesn't regard it as rape?


there's lots of alkies don't regard themselves as alkies, don't change the facts much.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 12, 2016)

i thought it was death that held the title for longevity?

Enjoyed your post spanglechick, and was wondering how many here would be squirming as they also enjoyed it?


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> All rape.  Including having sex with willing underage girls.



Totally agree with the spirit of your post only I'm a bit stuck on the statement above. That's what the law says I suppose, that any sex with someone before their 16th birthday = rape?
But is that true if say both of you are 15 and really happy to be doing what you're doing ? (real question)


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> isn't it true that the woman in question doesn't regard it as rape?


It is true that she doesn't regard it as rape.
It is also true that she was 14 at the time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> Totally agree with the spirit of your post only I'm a bit stuck on the statement above. That's what the law says I suppose, that any sex with someone before their 16th birthday = rape?
> But is that true if say both of you are 15 and really happy to be doing what you're doing ? (real question)


I liked the post, but am also a little conflicted about this bit. It's a problem with language as much as anything, I think. Sex with a willing 15-year-old is unlawful because the law sets the bar at 16, but imo it is a qualitatively different thing from forcing yourself on someone without consent. Covering both with the one word doesn't allow for important nuances.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> It is true that she doesn't regard it as rape.
> It is also true that she was 14 at the time.


the thing is it doesn't matter if she regards it as rape as she would never be judge, jury or prosecutor. it is a matter of law, being as the law states she cannot at that age give consent: and non-consensual sex is ...


----------



## TopCat (Jan 12, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> isn't it true that the woman in question doesn't regard it as rape?


I think many women who had sex with older men when they themselves were young teenagers push away thoughts that it could have been abusive as this is hard to handle. Whatever the desires of young teenage girls, grown men should leave them alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> Totally agree with the spirit of your post only I'm a bit stuck on the statement above. That's what the law says I suppose, that any sex with someone before their 16th birthday = rape?
> But is that true if say both of you are 15 and really happy to be doing what you're doing ? (real question)


frankly while it may be counter to the law it would be extremely unlikely that any case would be brought, either for rape or any other offence. the aoc more there to protect against aulder people taking advantage - and frankly someone who's 20 or 25 or 30 doesn't really have to work too hard to impress a 13, 14, 15 year auld.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I think many women who had sex with older men when they themselves were young teenagers push away thoughts that it could have been abusive as this is hard to handle. Whatever the desires of young teenage girls, grown men should leave them alone.


very much so.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I think many women who had sex with older men when they themselves were young teenagers push away thoughts that it could have been abusive as this is hard to handle. Whatever the desires of young teenage girls, grown men should leave them alone.


True. 
EDIT: but what LBJ says below is also true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I think many women who had sex with older men when they themselves were young teenagers push away thoughts that it could have been abusive as this is hard to handle. Whatever the desires of young teenage girls, grown men should leave them alone.


While I agree with your second sentence, your first comes across as rather patronising.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While I agree with your second sentence, your first comes across as rather patronising.


It would do given its nature.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> Totally agree with the spirit of your post only I'm a bit stuck on the statement above. That's what the law says I suppose, that any sex with someone before their 16th birthday = rape?
> But is that true if say both of you are 15 and really happy to be doing what you're doing ? (real question)


No, the law (in this country) doesn't say it's rape unless it was non-consensual.  Children of 12 and under cannot consent though so it is always rape.

The tricky thing about talking about teenage girl's sexual agency, older looking, streetwise girls who wanted it etc is that those 13, 14, 15 year olds who are outside of parental control, going out to night clubs and looking for sex with adult men are often the most vulnerable, not the least vulnerable.  A lot of the stuff that went on with grooming of teenage girls in Rotherham and other places was dismissed as streetwise 13 or 14 year olds "making their own choices".


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> the thing is it doesn't matter if she regards it as rape as she would never be judge, jury or prosecutor. it is a matter of law, being as the law states she cannot at that age give consent: and non-consensual sex is ...


Not sure who "she" is, but if she's in the UK, she is deemed as being capable of giving consent from 13, so it is not rape on the basis that she cannot consent. It might still be rape if she did not consent, and it is certainly unlawful sexual activity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Not sure who "she" is, but if she's in the UK, she is deemed as being capable of giving consent from 13, so it is not rape on the basis that she cannot consent. It might still be rape if she did not consent, and it is certainly unlawful sexual activity.


yeh well you get the drift


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I think our attitudes to rape are understandably knee-jerk.  Rape is always, always wrong.  All rape.  Including having sex with willing underage girls.
> 
> But rapists... Let's face it.  We allknow rapists.  We probably just don't know who they are. People who, when younger fucked hopelessly drunk people.  Or who kept putting the moves on their partner til he or she gave up protesting... And some of them went on to be better men.  Good men, in fact.
> 
> ...


with Peel, he acknowledged what he had done, and stated often how he bitterly regretted it. He made a s statement, that it was probably linked to his own abuse as a child, was also offered, not as an excuse, but simply as what happened. The fact that Bowie does not appear to have made any such statement is a very sad state of affairs.



Lucy Fur said:


> It is true that she doesn't regard it as rape.
> It is also true that she was 14 at the time.


so 14 year olds are incapable of knowing what they think?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> with Peel, he acknowledged what he had done, and stated often how he bitterly regretted it. He made a s statement, that it was probably linked to his own abuse as a child, was also offered, not as an excuse, but simply as what happened.



Fair play to him. 



belboid said:


> The fact that Bowie does not appear to have made any such statement is a very sad state of affairs.



Shame he couldn't have done so at the end. Maybe he has and we have yet to hear it.


----------



## aylee (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Not sure who "she" is, but if she's in the UK, she is deemed as being capable of giving consent from 13, so it is not rape on the basis that she cannot consent. It might still be rape if she did not consent, and it is certainly unlawful sexual activity.



This is correct.  Having penetrative sex with a person under the age of 13 (male or female) is rape under section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act whether or not the victim agreed to it.  Having sexual contact with a person between the ages of 13 and 16 is the offence of having sex with a child under section 9 of the Act, whether the victim agrees to it or not.  However, if the victim did not agree to it, and it was penetrative in nature, it can still be charged as rape under section 1.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...-offences-against-children-under-13/section/5

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences/section/9


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> So 14 year olds are incapable of knowing what they think?



That's what the law holds.

I have heard an argument that the answer to the 1970s suggestion that the ages of consent were an issue for the freedom of young people to make choices is that the entire point of being a child is that you must have the freedom to change your mind, retroactively, about choices you made. 

That's consistent with there being an age of consent for taking out a mortgage...


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> so 14 year olds are incapable of knowing what they think?



I have not said that. I have stated simply she was 14, and therefore in the eyes of the law a child.
It is quite natural for children of that age to wish to advance to adulthood quicker than they are allowed.
It is not alright for adults to facilate this in order to serve their own desires. 
I'm not, nor have ever said these girls were raped. I do however believe they were systermatically abused.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> I have not said that. I have stated simply she was 14, and therefore in the eyes of the law a child.
> It is quite natural for children of that age to wish to advance to adulthood quicker than they are allowed.
> It is not alright for adults to facilate this in order to serve their own desires.
> I'm not, nor have ever said these girls were raped. I do however believe they were systermatically abused.


all of which I'd agree with.  But it isn't what your post, as quoted, implied.  Fair does tho


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> That's what the law holds.


is it?  Really??  How could their evidence ever be used in court then?  Or how could they have criminal responsibility from 10??



> I have heard an argument that the answer to the 1970s suggestion that the ages of consent were an issue for the freedom of young people to make choices is that the entire point of being a child is that you must have the freedom to change your mind, retroactively, about choices you made.
> 
> That's consistent with there being an age of consent for taking out a mortgage...


Interesting argument, I'd have to think about that.


----------



## Lucy Fur (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> all of which I'd agree with.  But it isn't what your post, as quoted, implied.  Fair does tho


I wasn't quite sure where frogwoman  was going with her post and was hoping to draw a little more comment.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> I wasn't quite sure where #frogwomen was going with her post and was hoping to draw a little more comment.


aah, okay.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> I wasn't quite sure where #frogwomen was going with her post and was hoping to draw a little more comment.


@ frogwoman -- @ not #


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> is it?  Really??  How could their evidence ever be used in court then?  Or how could they have criminal responsibility from 10??



Who said the law was logically consistent? 

E2A: though it might _theoretically_ be possible to consistently set different ages for different choices.



belboid said:


> Interesting argument, I'd have to think about that.



Narrative version: someone who was an enthusiastic raver at 14 gets god at 19: all the choices they made about sex, drugs and rock'n'roll *then* are *now wrong. *Really wrong, genuinely retroactively wrong, in some interesting sense.

Or, to show that this isn't a moralistic argument, the reverse: an enthusiastic god-botherer discovers sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and has regrets about their unmisspent youth


----------



## 1%er (Jan 12, 2016)

Its interesting that in the UK children aged 10 are held to be responsible for criminal acts but deemed unable (because of their age) to make responsible decisions in other areas.


----------



## campanula (Jan 12, 2016)

I find myself quite incapable of demonstrating such tolerances myself (thinking of your post,  SpangleChick .My daughter embarked on a horrible relationship, thankfully very short-lived, with a much older man (she was 15, he was 26): I find I am still, over 20 years later, utterly incandescent with rage about this. But worse, I was an out of control teenager myself and far worse things happened to me than a week long 'affair' with an older man. Obviously, I carry coruscating guilt and failure fears. My daughter though, who insists she was 'in control', still considers my rage (and subsequent actions) to have been inappropriate and needless - it almost caused a long painful rift between us...and  this disconnect kind of illustrates the complexities since we very much want our children to experience a freedom and open-mindedness to explore their own sexuality, independence and adolescence.
Whilst I came to terms with my own bad decisions, I have been unable (or perhaps unwilling) to move on from my failings as a parent, including double standards and hypocrisies aplenty.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

1%er said:


> Its interesting that in the UK children aged 10 are held to be responsible for criminal acts but deemed unable (because of their age) to make responsible decisions in other areas.


I think that is because, in law, one does not have to decide to do something to be criminally responsible for it.

We're lucky - in some US states it's 6


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 12, 2016)

No, but the overwhelming majority of criminal offences include a _mens rea_ element that refers to the state of mind of the offender (intention, negligence, reckless etc.).


----------



## Wilf (Jan 12, 2016)

I really take on board the points made about 14/15 year old girls having agency and genuine choice.  It _*is*_ wrong to simply portray this in terms of pure victimhood.  All of that is important and probably the reason why we are not thinking about what Bowie and others did as rape per se (though there's a big discussion to be had about the nature of consent and when it can be given).  But whilst that is important, to me it's the wrong side of the equation.  This should be about the various rockstars did, *about their agency and choices*.  Even at that simple level it's about men choosing to have sex with girls/young women they knew were underage. *It's as simple as that* - something they chose to do, *their agency*.  However it's also something worse, with the use of fame and drugs and institutionalised 'procurement' of girls for sex by roadies and managers.  It's clearly about the use of power and control - and not some random process where an adult male ended up having sex with an adolescent by accident.


----------



## bimble (Jan 12, 2016)

Can't answer for frogwoman (would not dare to) but when I saw her post, asking about whether it's at all relevant here what the girl/woman everyone is talking about actually said and thought about the whole thing, I thought - good question.
Reminds me of the recent story about  Chrissie Hynde, and how it was apparently not ok for her to have an opinion about what her own experience was, or what it meant to her.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2016)

1%er said:


> Its interesting that in the UK children aged 10 are held to be responsible for criminal acts but deemed unable (because of their age) to make responsible decisions in other areas.


tbh I think 12 and under, it's rape whatever, above that possible grey zone, is about right. 10 as the age of criminal responsibility is too young, imo.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 12, 2016)

You can take on board comments about teenagers' agency and the complexity of the issues, but still note that nobody is defending this sort of behaviour with examples from their own adult life (or that of their adult friends). If some people chooses not to interpret these sort of experiences as abusive who are the rest of us to say otherwise, particularly if they maintain that view into adult life, but it is telling that nobody has posted anecdotes about their adult mates bringing fourteen-year-old partners down the pub on a Friday night.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> I find myself quite incapable of demonstrating such tolerances myself (thinking of your post,  SpangleChick .My daughter embarked on a horrible relationship, thankfully very short-lived, with a much older man (she was 15, he was 26): I find I am still, over 20 years later, utterly incandescent with rage about this. But worse, I was an out of control teenager myself and far worse things happened to me than a week long 'affair' with an older man. Obviously, I carry coruscating guilt and failure fears. My daughter though, who insists she was 'in control', still considers my rage (and subsequent actions) to have been inappropriate and needless - it almost caused a long painful rift between us...and  this disconnect kind of illustrates the complexities since we very much want our children to experience a freedom and open-mindedness to explore their own sexuality, independence and adolescence.
> Whilst I came to terms with my own bad decisions, I have been unable (or perhaps unwilling) to move on from my failings as a parent, including double standards and hypocrisies aplenty.


I wonder how David Bowie felt looking back once his own daughter was 13 or 14.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2016)

bimble said:


> Can't answer for frogwoman (would not dare to) but when I saw her post, asking about whether it's at all relevant here what the girl/woman everyone is talking about actually said and thought about the whole thing, I thought - good question.
> Reminds me of the recent story about  Chrissie Hynde, and how it was apparently not ok for her to have an opinion about what her own experience was, or what it meant to her.



Seeing some very SHOUTY people on social media on both sides. Male and female. some refusing to believe that he was anything other than a saint and some shouting at everyone that is slightly sad about his death


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> No, but the overwhelming majority of criminal offences include a _mens rea_ element that refers to the state of mind of the offender (intention, negligence, reckless etc.).


Most of these Significant Ages are a bit of a bodge-up at the best of times. I think that the minimum age of criminal responsibility was introduced in 1933 (Children & Young Persons Act); before that time, there was no minimum, and children were liable to be prosecuted for offences. The UK is considered to be rather behind the times - in most European jurisdictions, it's 14.

So any attempt to apply logic to it (as I came close to doing) is futile. To some extent, the same is true of the age of consent, which is a pretty arbitrary number when you think about the range of levels of development that you can see in children from between 14 and 18.

And there are plenty of adults - including quite a few on here - whom I really wouldn't trust with a vote, regardless of their age


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> You can take on board comments about teenagers' agency and the complexity of the issues, but still note that nobody is defending this sort of behaviour with examples from their own adult life (or that of their adult friends). If some people chooses not to interpret these sort of experiences as abusive who are the rest of us to say otherwise, particularly if they maintain that view into adult life, but it is telling that nobody has posted anecdotes about their adult mates bringing fourteen-year-old partners down the pub on a Friday night.


someone i know who runs a pub, at a squat party in kentish town on nye 1991/92 spent much of the evening cuddling a girl he layer found out (while at party) was 13. he was mortified and had the piss ripped for months. he was about 20 at the time.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> You can take on board comments about teenagers' agency and the complexity of the issues, but still note that nobody is defending this sort of behaviour with examples from their own adult life (or that of their adult friends). If some people chooses not to interpret these sort of experiences as abusive who are the rest of us to say otherwise, particularly if they maintain that view into adult life, but it is telling that nobody has posted anecdotes about their adult mates bringing fourteen-year-old partners down the pub on a Friday night.


I think it's important to note that nobody is defending this behaviour, period. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that the allegation that Bowie had sex with a 13 year old was acceptable or should have been legal.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

Thora said:


> I wonder how David Bowie felt looking back once his own daughter was 13 or 14.


I'm not a parent, but I imagine that quite a few parents will have had cringeworthy moments as they note their own kids passing milestones that have particular significance for them.

Between marriages, I did have a (brief) relationship with a woman who was just about young enough to have been my daughter. That causes the occasional curling of the toes, on reflection. Though she was 25 at the time, so I'm not making any terrible admissions here...


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

aylee said:


> owever, if the victim did not agree to it, and it was penetrative in nature, it can still be charged as rape under section 1.


Umm ... if a victim does not agree to 'it', and it's penetrative, it's rape whether the victim is 14, 40 or 82


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think it's important to note that nobody is defending this behaviour, period. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that the allegation that Bowie had sex with a 13 year old was acceptable or should have been legal.



One poster has been quite keen to refer back to trolling on the original thread repeatedly, has focused on mitigating factors, has questioned the veracity of the women's accounts, has dismissed it as a one off incident, and has questioned whether anyone could prove that Bowie knew the age of the people he slept with. Read that how you will.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> One poster has been quite keen to refer back to trolling on the original thread repeatedly, has focused on mitigating factors, has questioned the veracity of the young women's accounts, has dismissed it as a one off incident, and has questioned whether anyone could prove that Bowie knew the age of the people he slept with. Read that how you will.


and strangely not a contrarian, which makes it worse


----------



## campanula (Jan 12, 2016)

It is very easy to develop elastic interpretations when we take the sum total of our life expectations and experiences into account.
(nothing like stating the obvious but)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> One poster has been quite keen to refer back to trolling on the original thread repeatedly, has focused on mitigating factors, has questioned the veracity of the women's accounts, has dismissed it as a one off incident, and has questioned whether anyone could prove that Bowie knew the age of the people he slept with. Read that how you will.


well, that's one urbanite who will never meet my niece


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Which one of these actors arent age appropriate.



Hopefully not the one at the top of the pyramid!


----------



## 1%er (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I think 12 and under, it's rape whatever, above that possible grey zone, is about right. 10 as the age of criminal responsibility is too young, imo.


I think I'd agree 10 seem a little young to be holding someone criminally responsible, there has just been a big public debate here about raising it to 16 from 12.  I know a number of 12 years olds who are more mature (in their thinking and actions) than some 20 year olds. I find it strange that young adults can get married but can't vote or drink alcohol.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> You can take on board comments about teenagers' agency and the complexity of the issues, but still note that nobody is defending this sort of behaviour with examples from their own adult life (or that of their adult friends). If some people chooses not to interpret these sort of experiences as abusive who are the rest of us to say otherwise, particularly if they maintain that view into adult life, but it is telling that nobody has posted anecdotes about their adult mates bringing fourteen-year-old partners down the pub on a Friday night.


actually, this just jogged my memory - in the mid 90s (I was a late teen) there was a couple in my extended friendship group, he was in his early 20s and she was 13 when they started going out. No-one seemed to think anything of it at the time, but looking back I'm quite surprised it wasn't an issue.

That said, there were some older men in that group who's predatory behaviour on girls who were past 16 still makes me cross today, whereas Jon and Adele actually seemed a nice couple (I still see her about occasionally, she's pretty cool).


----------



## keybored (Jan 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I remember that as well, and it read like it was deliberately written as a warning.


Doesn't she become a nun or a born-again Christian by the end?

Edit: My bad, that was a different one, not "Little Orphan Amphetamine".


----------



## alan_ (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> I think those say it all really, the 70s were massively fucked up.


Now hold on a second, I understand that you are getting shit from all directions and as a result may be willing to cling to anything to cast your arguments in a slightly better light, but those links "do not say it all really" in fact they hardly say anything at all relevant to the greater mass.
Also, the 70s were massively fucked up, who told you that? were they more fucked up than present times? Did you live through them?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think it's important to note that nobody is defending this behaviour, period. I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that the allegation that Bowie had sex with a 13 year old was acceptable or should have been legal.



Fuck's sake, isn't anyone interested in reading what Lori Maddox actually says about this, she was 15.  The reason this is important is that in a lot of the scandal sheets where they talk about her being 13 its reported she lost her virginity to both David and Angie Bowie.  This interview makes clear that she was 15, and that Angie wasn't present.  

I looked into this some time ago, and what Bowie did, whilst very wrong, is only the tip of the iceberg and this stuff should be investigated just as it has been in other areas (as such facts are important).  Personally I think 15 is different to 13, and there is very little moral difference between an adult having sex with a mature 15 year old or an immature 16 year old - but I don't think it's even the point, what was taking place was a deeply misogynist culture, where young women were exploited and seen as little more than sex objects at best and obscenely abused or raped at worst.  Whilst the abuse of those who were obviously under-age and still children is probably the only area where charges could be brought and likely to draw the most criticism, the idea that someone gets a complete moral pass the second someone turns 16 is bollocks.  This culture lasted long after the 70's and was present in the big hair metal bands of the 80s that were huge in the states, and probably most guitar based music scenes for the next 20/30 years.  It may well still exist, Lori Maddox in her interview seems to think it does.


----------



## 8den (Jan 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Hopefully not the one at the top of the pyramid!



Yes Milas Kunis was 14 when the 70s show started...

Mila Kunis


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> It may well still exist


Ian Watkins


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 12, 2016)

8den said:


> Yes Milas Kunis was 14 when the 70s show started...
> 
> Mila Kunis



Good job I can't get my hands on a time machine then.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> Ian Watkins



He's definitely not underage.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Good job I can't get my hands on a time machine then.


oh, come on.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Jan 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> oh, come on.



Well knowing her age I'd turn the dials to the appropriate year. FWIW she's older than me.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> I find myself quite incapable of demonstrating such tolerances myself (thinking of your post,  SpangleChick .My daughter embarked on a horrible relationship, thankfully very short-lived, with a much older man (she was 15, he was 26): I find I am still, over 20 years later, utterly incandescent with rage about this. But worse, I was an out of control teenager myself and far worse things happened to me than a week long 'affair' with an older man. Obviously, I carry coruscating guilt and failure fears. My daughter though, who insists she was 'in control', still considers my rage (and subsequent actions) to have been inappropriate and needless - it almost caused a long painful rift between us...and  this disconnect kind of illustrates the complexities since we very much want our children to experience a freedom and open-mindedness to explore their own sexuality, independence and adolescence.
> Whilst I came to terms with my own bad decisions, I have been unable (or perhaps unwilling) to move on from my failings as a parent, including double standards and hypocrisies aplenty.



What I'm currently coming to think about is how our perspective on this kind of things develops.  Young people do know their own minds, but lack the perspective to see the power imbalance.  I, too, was sexually precocious as a teenager, and dallied with much older men (one 36 year old when I was 16 - though we did not go "all the way")...   and I find myself wondering when I developed that understanding.  

For me, becoming a teacher quite young (21 when I started my PGCE) meant that I found myself surrounded by 11-18 year olds and it became achingly clear how young they really are when their guard is down and they're not trying to be mature and worldly.  For others, having a younger sibling or cousin might provide that reaisation.  Obviously, becoming a parent makes it screamingly obvious...  but without those experiences might it be harder to understand the essential vulnerabiity of a sexually precocious adolescent?

I haved long pondered about the development of empathy.  I obviously felt sympathy in my early adulthood when I heard about natural disasters... but I think it was well into my twenties before I developed true empathy - really and automatically felt something of the pain that the flood victime (or whatever) felt.  Obviously people develop this at different rates...  but I don't think I was a monster. Certainly most teenagers don't have it yet (hence the greater incidence of bullying at that age). 

And so I wonder if resisting the temptation of sexually provocative 14 year olds is something we mostly do when we're younger because we know we shouldn't, rather than fully understanding why.  And that it might, therfore, be somthing we grow out of as our empathy and social experience grow.  It's difficult to articulate this - I'm not excusing Bowie.  Knowing it's wrong should be enough (just as a lack of empathy might stop a student in my class from not wanting to be disruptive because it wastes everyone's learning time...  but they should just  stop fucking about anyway)...  but does perhaps explain why our perspective on this kind sexual offence changes over time.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Fuck's sake, isn't anyone interested in reading what Lori Maddox actually says about this, she was 15.  The reason this is important is that in a lot of the scandal sheets where they talk about her being 13 its reported she lost her virginity to both David and Angie Bowie.  This interview makes clear that she was 15, and that Angie wasn't present.
> 
> I looked into this some time ago, and what Bowie did, whilst very wrong, is only the tip of the iceberg and this stuff should be investigated just as it has been in other areas (as such facts are important).  Personally I think 15 is different to 13, and there is very little moral difference between an adult having sex with a mature 15 year old or an immature 16 year old - but I don't think it's even the point, what was taking place was a deeply misogynist culture, where young women were exploited and seen as little more than sex objects at best and obscenely abused or raped at worst.  Whilst the abuse of those who were obviously under-age and still children is probably the only area where charges could be brought and likely to draw the most criticism, the idea that someone gets a complete moral pass the second someone turns 16 is bollocks.  This culture lasted long after the 70's and was present in the big hair metal bands of the 80s that were huge in the states, and probably most guitar based music scenes for the next 20/30 years.  It may well still exist, Lori Maddox in her interview seems to think it does.


She has also said it was the night he played at the Long Beach arena, which was March 1973.  She was born in November 1958 making her 14 years and 4 months old.  She says she first met him 5 months earlier and he wanted to take her to his hotel room but she was terrified - so when she was 13.  He also has sex with Sable Starr that night with Lori, Sable aged 15.  Lori says Sable and her 13 year old sister Corel are both dating Iggy Pop at the time.
So, girls of 13, 14, 15.  Not sure there is a huge difference.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

Thora said:


> She has also said it was the night he played at the Long Beach arena, which was March 1973.  She was born in November 1958 making her 14 years and 4 months old.  She says she first met him 5 months earlier and he wanted to take her to his hotel room but she was terrified - so when she was 13.  He also has sex with Sable Starr that night with Lori, Sable aged 15.  Lori says Sable and her 13 year old sister Corel are both dating Iggy Pop at the time.
> So, girls of 13, 14, 15.  Not sure there is a huge difference.



are you saying she's lying in that interview?


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> are you saying she's lying in that interview?


Are you saying she's lying?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

no, shes quite clear, she was just short of 15 when she first met him and 15 when they had sex.  Not that quibbling over months matters much, see my earlier post, but that's what she says.  Perhaps you can point to a link where she says something else.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> no, shes quite clear, she was just short of 15 when she first met him and 15 when they had sex.  Not that quibbling over months matters much, see my earlier post, but that's what she says.  Perhaps you can point to a link where she says something else.


In the interview she names a date when she was 14.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

Thora said:


> In the interview she names a date when she was 14.



she says she met him when she was 14, on the spiders from mars tour, they had sex several months later


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> she says she met him when she was 14, on the spiders from mars tour, they had sex several months later


It's there in her own interview, I just looked up the date he played that gig.  She also quite famously began dating Jimmy Page after David Bowie, in June 1973 when she was 14.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

Yes, it says she met him on the spiders from mars tour, presumably the long beach gig, when she was 14.  she met him again 'maybe five months later, and they had sex.' nowhere in that interview does she say they had sex after the long beach gig, thats why I assumed you had another source.  That would also have made her 15 when she met Page, as she says.  Given the only testimony we have of these events is hers then I'll take her word for it, not yours ta.


----------



## Looby (Jan 12, 2016)

I've been thinking about this a lot today. I too was having sex at a pretty young age with older blokes. At the time I thought I was mature, too mature for stupid teen boys and was completely in control of what I was doing. On reflection, I was a fucked up, lonely and frightened teenager whose life was falling to shit. 
It's taken quite a lot of years for me to really accept that and I guess my job has really made me realise how vulnerable I was. 

Now I'm a support worker and have worked with young people only 2 or 3 years older than I was when I was having my very mature and respectful relationship with the older man and it makes me shudder. I also have a 13 year old relative, that's the real kicker. She's so young but probably also thinks she's mature beyond her years. She's not, she's a child.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Yes, it says she met him on the spiders from mars tour, presumably the long beach gig, when she was 14.  she met him again 'maybe five months later, and they had sex.' nowhere in that interview does she say they had sex after the long beach gig, thats why I assumed you had another source.  That would also have made her 15 when she met Page, as she says.  Given the only testimony we have of these events is hers then I'll take her word for it, not yours ta.


"For me, now, I’m in the fashion business and look back very fondly on those years. I was really special. _I knew it the night after I lost my virginity to David Bowie, when I went to see his concert at Long Beach Arena_. It was still the Spiders from Mars tour, and, literally, the night that he became a star."


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

This thread has really made me think - so thanks LiamO for starting it. 

For me, I think the 'zero tolerance' approach raises my hackles because of my own underage experiences. It's a tricky one, because of course I absolutely think grown men should not ever have sex with children; but 15 year old me had a relationship - and eventually sex - with a grown man (21 fwiw). I have been thinking about it a lot for the last 24 hours and I reckon in my case, even with adult perspective, there was no power imbalance. And my conclusion is that it was down to sheer, blind luck. I could just as easily have been in an abusive relationship. Which is why there _does _need to be a clear cut age of consent, obviously. We can't be legislating that children under the age of 16 can have sex with adults, and we'll protect the unlucky ones. It doesn't work like that. HOWEVER the shouty approach has got under my skin, and I think it's because - for me - it's like having my own (fortunate) past mansplained to me. 'Absolutely not, you were manipulated/abused, despite how you feel, because I said so'. Not accusing anyone here of that btw, I mean the discussion in broad terms. 

And here's the rub. The shouty, zero tolerance approach being put forward by men (I don't mean anyone here, really I don't, but sometimes discussion in these terms can feel like 'all men') - by the establishment - is getting up my nose, not because I think it's okay for powerful, adult men to have sex with underage girls, but because it feels (to me) like a triumphant absolution. The establishment, famous for not giving a flying fuck about the imbalance of power regarding adult women in consensual fucking relationships, are jumping up and down about this in a way that's pissing me off.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

She also says of Jimmy Page "Zeppelin was starting its tour for _Houses of the Holy_ and Jimmy stationed himself in LA. The band had a private jet, called the Starship, and he flew back and forth from the gigs. But I was underage and couldn’t travel with him. So I would stay in the room and wait for Jimmy."
Looks like that tour ran from May to July 1973.  So she was 14 and a half.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> One poster has been quite keen to refer back to trolling on the original thread repeatedly, has focused on mitigating factors, has questioned the veracity of the women's accounts, has dismissed it as a one off incident, and has questioned whether anyone could prove that Bowie knew the age of the people he slept with. Read that how you will.



I see the aforementioned poster is back, lurking and liking, but has still not answered either of the questions put to him earlier.

Perhaps he might explain how his responses _should_ be read. Just so people don't 'misinterpret' them. By that I mean how what he actually wrote should be read... not what he _wishes_ he had written.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> actually, this just jogged my memory - in the mid 90s (I was a late teen) there was a couple in my extended friendship group, he was in his early 20s and she was 13 when they started going out. No-one seemed to think anything of it at the time, but looking back I'm quite surprised it wasn't an issue...


The fact that you describe yourself as a teenager in this anecdote supports my point. I'm not commenting on your assessment of their relationship, but nobody has a similar story about there mate Bob introducing them to his new girlfriend last week.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Thora said:


> She also says of Jimmy Page "Zeppelin was starting its tour for _Houses of the Holy_ and Jimmy stationed himself in LA. The band had a private jet, called the Starship, and he flew back and forth from the gigs. But I was underage and couldn’t travel with him. So I would stay in the room and wait for Jimmy."
> Looks like that tour ran from May to July 1973.  So she was 14 and a half.



"I'll just change the dates a bit, muddy the waters just enough to take the edge off"  the now-middle-aged woman decided.

But Inspector Thora was now on the case and her 'muddying' was about to be unmuddied in clinical fashion.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> This thread has really made me think - so thanks LiamO for starting it.
> 
> For me, I think the 'zero tolerance' approach raises my hackles because of my own underage experiences. It's a tricky one, because of course I absolutely think grown men should not ever have sex with children; but 15 year old me had a relationship - and eventually sex - with a grown man (21 fwiw). I have been thinking about it a lot for the last 24 hours and I reckon in my case, even with adult perspective, there was no power imbalance. And my conclusion is that it was down to sheer, blind luck. I could just as easily have been in an abusive relationship. Which is why there _does _need to be a clear cut age of consent, obviously. We can't be legislating that children under the age of 16 can have sex with adults, and we'll protect the unlucky ones. It doesn't work like that. HOWEVER the shouty approach has got under my skin, and I think it's because - for me - it's like having my own (fortunate) past mansplained to me. 'Absolutely not, you were manipulated/abused, despite how you feel, because I said so'. Not accusing anyone here of that btw, I mean the discussion in broad terms.
> 
> And here's the rub. The shouty, zero tolerance approach being put forward by men (I don't mean anyone here, really I don't, but sometimes discussion in these terms can feel like 'all men') - by the establishment - is getting up my nose, not because I think it's okay for powerful, adult men to have sex with underage girls, but because it feels (to me) like a triumphant absolution. The establishment, famous for not giving a flying fuck about the imbalance of power regarding adult women in consensual fucking relationships, are jumping up and down about this in a way that's pissing me off.



Thanks for posting Rebelda. Hopefully there are a few more posters pondering an input and your post will encourage them.

I agree (mostly) with you. AFAIK this thread has been the first time this conversation has ever been conducted in a (mostly) non-shouty way on here (barring the pantomime provided by 8den).

That was made possible IMO simply because, for the first time, we are discussing it in the context of someone who so many people on here have such a genuine love for.

I thought I might get a more shouty response to post# 599 Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls  - about my ex-Para mate. But the only person shouting was 8den who had - as is his wont - completely misread the post or else chose to misrepresent it.

If felixthecat is about, I wonder if you could respond to my post #606  Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls . Did that clarify what I meant properly for you?


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 12, 2016)

I've followed the debate for the last couple of days with interest, not least in the mainly civilised way it's been conducted on a controversial subject.

FWIW, if you delve into Jimmy Pages history I'm pretty sure you'll find more than the one incidence.

But anyway. I'm kinda interested in where and why the line is drawn. I can't offer you up a straightforward 20 year old man 13 year old girl scenario. But for my own part...nearly all my relationships have been with age different 'older'  women. But when I was 24 I started a relationship with a 17 year old female. Her family wanted, and tried, to kill me. As it turned out there was irony involved. My gf, later in the relationship, confessed her father had sexually abused her throughout her childhood.

Our relationship lasted six years before we separated, me leaving for an older woman, something she (through her own conditioning?), had a hard time understanding. (If you want the specifics, I left a 23 year old  for a 39 year old).

I never had a problem with that age gap. Others did. Do you? If so, why? Where and why is that line drawn?

For me it has sod all to do with age, everything to do with the power dynamic in the relationship (as others have mentioned). I have never sought an age-specific person. Just a person. I think the age of consent is important and necessary but not so black and white that we can prosecute everyone who has sex with an underage person. How can it be black and white when so many European countries have a different age? To that end, is everyone here agreed that the UK has it right at 16? If I were to advocate 15 here would I be flamed as a prospective paedophile?

To reiterate my position. Its all about the power dynamic. And that, in the context of a patriarchal society and everything that brings. But I find myself erring more towards those suggesting greyness in areas than those shouting, for want of better words I cannot think of right now, "hang the rapist Bowie".

And just to make it absolutely plain. I've never screwed anyone under the age of consent.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 12, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> For me it has sod all to do with age, everything to do with the power dynamic in the relationship


I broadly agree, but age can play a part in the power dynamic, especially when dealing with teenagers.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Her family wanted, and tried, to kill me. As it turned out there was irony involved. My gf, later in the relationship, confessed her father had sexually abused her throughout her childhood.



I'm afraid it may be common that those who react most violently are those with most to hide


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

Thora said:


> "For me, now, I’m in the fashion business and look back very fondly on those years. I was really special. _I knew it the night after I lost my virginity to David Bowie, when I went to see his concert at Long Beach Arena_. It was still the Spiders from Mars tour, and, literally, the night that he became a star."



Fair enough, but that contradicts what she says earlier in the interview and I'm still inclined to take her word for it


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> HOWEVER the shouty approach has got under my skin, and I think it's because - for me - it's like having my own (fortunate) past mansplained to me. 'Absolutely not, you were manipulated/abused, despite how you feel, because I said so'. Not accusing anyone here of that btw, I mean the discussion in broad terms.


Thank you. I've been really struggling to articulate it but this is exactly how I feel.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> "I'll just change the dates a bit, muddy the waters just enough to take the edge off"  the now-middle-aged woman decided.
> 
> But Inspector Thora was now on the case and her 'muddying' was about to be unmuddied in clinical fashion.



Hang on, the only evidence at all that Bowie slept with Lori Maddox seems to come from her.  And now your calling her a deliberate liar?  Theres some back to front fucking thinking going on there.


----------



## Thora (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Fair enough, but that contradicts what she says earlier in the interview and I'm still inclined to take her word for it


She's saying two different things, so I guess you'll just have to choose the one you like best.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

I guess he's probably going to choose the one he crashed into the thread shouting about.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Thank you. I've been really struggling to articulate it but this is exactly how I feel.


It took me a lot of thinking last night to work out why the start of this thread, and some of the absolutism I've seen on f'book, annoyed me so much - when in theory i do absolutely agree with the notion that men shouldn't have sex with underage girls. I think the absolute approach, while legally correct, can feel on a personal level like denial of experience. Like being told you're a silly little girl.

I reckon 16 is the right AoC fwiw. There's certainly grey area, but imo we need to legislate to protect. Presumably a respectful underage sexual relationship doesn't require the law, but girls 16 and under who have been abused should have all the law they can on their side.

Obviously this protection should extend beyond sixteen but it doesn't


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> "I'll just change the dates a bit, muddy the waters just enough to take the edge off"  the now-middle-aged woman decided.


Or the younger woman decided to talk her story up to make more money. Both are perfectly plausible.



Thora said:


> So, girls of 13, 14, 15.  Not sure there is a huge difference.


in those cases, there doesn't seem to have been that much difference, but generally those are the ages when some of the biggest changes are happening to young people, when they are coming to terms with their new bodies and feelings, it's just not true to say, as a generality, that there isn't much difference between 13 & 15.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 12, 2016)

I think anyone who has been abused, regardless of age, should have all the protection of the law possible (and hey, it might be nice to start with upping the 7% of rape convictions). The problem I have the the AofC is that it seems, and maybe I'm wrong, but seems to give meat to the wolves of outrage who want to consider it an absolute and prosecute all underage sex, creating folk devils and moral panics, rather than using discretion where discretion may be due.

A LOT of people have sex under 16. Some of those circumstances produce people onto the sex register. This is not always a right and proper thing.

I don't thing an arbitrary protection in law should begin just because of a certain age. It should be applied just as readily where power has been abused.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Obviously this protection should extend beyond sixteen but it doesn't



Has the new offence of being a controlling cunt come into force yet? Good luck with getting convictions for that, if the cunt has a half-awake lawyer.

E2A: it's called "coercive and controlling behaviour"


----------



## smokedout (Jan 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> I guess he's probably going to choose the one he crashed into the thread shouting about.



I'd rather choose the one thats true, and fact is we dont know for sure.  But it was this kind of shit that helped fuck up other investigations into historic abuse, and I crashed into this thread because I've seen lots of links posted over the last couple of days that says both Angie and David slept with Maddox when she was 13, and thats not true as far as Lori's testimony goes - which is the only evidence there is and which Thora has just done a pretty good job of discrediting by trying to prove she was lying/mistaken..


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> Has the new offence of being a controlling cunt come into force yet? Good luck with getting convictions for that, if the cunt has a half-awake lawyer.


Huh?


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Huh?



Hit "post" too soon. It'll be called "coercive and controlling behaviour" and as far as I can tell it's only a Theresa May proposal...

Official announcement: Government to create new domestic abuse offence - News stories - GOV.UK

E2A - those links were more than a year old. Sorry. See announcement below.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I'd rather choose the one thats true, and fact is we dont know for sure.  But it was this kind of shit that helped fuck up other investigations into historic abuse, and I crashed into this thread because I've seen lots of links posted over the last couple of days that says both Angie and David slept with Maddox when she was 13, and thats not true as far as Lori's testimony goes - which is the only evidence there is and which Thora has just done a pretty good job of discrediting by trying to prove she was lying/mistaken..


Hardly. It's really easy to forget exactly how old you were when something happened, but dates of specific things don't change. I don't think Thora has discredited maddox at all.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> Has the new offence of being a controlling cunt come into force yet? Good luck with getting convictions for that, if the cunt has a half-awake lawyer.
> 
> E2A: it has and it's called "coercive and controlling behaviour"





Rebelda said:


> Huh?


I think the point laptop is making is that there are laws planned to protect over-16s - anyone in particular - from the emotional abuse perpetrated by "control freak" partners. Recent, but it's a start.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think the point laptop is making is that there are laws planned to protect over-16s - anyone in particular - from the emotional abuse perpetrated by "control freak" partners. Recent, but it's a start.



Then I thought I was wrong: but then - last year was *2015*.

Announcement of new law: Coercive or controlling behaviour now a crime - News stories - GOV.UK



> ...behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence, but amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, can bring their perpetrators to justice
> 
> The offence will carry a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine or both.


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> But I was wrong while you were quoting me - I don't even see a Bill before Parliament yet.


Got its first reading a week or so ago.  The Today show featured the Archers storyline to illustrate it. 

It will be very difficult to get a conviction, I imagine, but not impossible. At the very least it should help to get across what coercive control _is,_ which could help some people recognise it is happening to them.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

laptop said:


> Hit "post" too soon. It'll be called "coercive and controlling behaviour" and as far as I can tell it's only a Theresa May proposal...
> 
> Official announcement: Government to create new domestic abuse offence - News stories - GOV.UK


Oh i see. Interesting - I'm surprised/not surprised that until now it hasn't been an offence. A behavioural offence that requires documentary evidence  it can't hurt i suppose but it seems like a drop in the ocean. "And what were you wearing when he coerced you madam? Had you had anything to drink?" Etc etc. 



existentialist said:


> I think the point laptop is making is that there are laws planned to protect over-16s - anyone in particular - from the emotional abuse perpetrated by "control freak" partners. Recent, but it's a start.


Yep, i follow now. I was thinking more along the lines of, y'know, _believing and not blaming the victims of abuse _but like you say, it's a start.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 12, 2016)

It's in force from 29 December last. A useful summary here.
Controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship by Peter Doyle QC- 25 Bedford Row


----------



## belboid (Jan 12, 2016)

Got it wrong! It didn't get its first reading, it came into effect - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76/enacted


----------



## 1927 (Jan 12, 2016)

sim667 said:


> You saying Saville doesn't deserve the bad press?


Not at all. Justvfind it strange that certain pop stars and celebs are given latitude to transgress and others are crucified for similar behaviour.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 12, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they? Yet they were invited on tv or to photo shoots, and given positive write-ups. To repeat, that couldn't happen today.



From what I remember, that story occupied the period when the period when attitudes to sex/other activities with underagers was very decisively changing - there was no one pivotal moment but over a couple of years, a whole lot of things changed.

It is worth remembering that Mandy Smith herself was already marked as a rather "unusual" young girl in the eyes of the media of the time - One of the 80's "Wild Child" girls (see also Amanda deCadenet and Tamara Beckwith), whose drunken "high life" antics in London clubs and affairs with often much older men (yes, including rock stars) were very much daily fare for the tabloids.  In some ways they were probably the British equivalent or paralell of the Baby Groupies.

In the same period, the PIE scandal finally broke in the mainstream press and they were rapidly hounded out of lobbying/corridors of power, then a number of seriously unwise court judgments eg the one where child porn was described by a judge as being no-worse than collecting cigarette cards and the exposure of some serious amounts of child abuse in other cases finally prompted a widespread and serious rethink.

When the news of them broke, attitudes were probably grudgingly behind Wyman - but that didn't last long, probably not even till they married?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

1927 said:


> Not at all. Justvfind it strange that certain pop stars and celebs are given latitude to transgress and others are crucified for similar behaviour.


I'm sorry but this is really beginning to piss me off (not picking on you especially - it's been everywhere). As far as I can tell, Lori Maddox slept with Bowie willingly. She gave consent. Whether a 13/14/15 year old is capable of giving informed consent is a separate discussion and one that it's worth having.

However, putting him (and pretty much every single male pop star in the 60s and 70s - I challenge you to find one who didn't sleep with an underage girl) into the same bad box as a paedophile who raped sleeping children, or a man who got his cab to turn around to fuck an unconscious woman (Evans) or a man who raped babies (Watkins) is really not at all helpful. It closes discussion and debate down.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Hang on, the only evidence at all that Bowie slept with Lori Maddox seems to come from her.  And now your calling her a deliberate liar?


Or you know that she might have misremembered.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> However, putting him (and pretty much every single male pop star in the 60s and 70s - I challenge you to find one who didn't sleep with an underage girl)



Cliff Richard.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Cliff Richard.


 They all ran really really fast in the opposite direction. Along with the boys


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Oh i see. Interesting - I'm surprised/not surprised that until now it hasn't been an offence. A behavioural offence that requires documentary evidence  it can't hurt i suppose but it seems like a drop in the ocean. "And what were you wearing when he coerced you madam? Had you had anything to drink?" Etc etc.
> 
> 
> Yep, i follow now. I was thinking more along the lines of, y'know, _believing and not blaming the victims of abuse _but like you say, it's a start.


I think we have come some way down the road of believing and not blaming abuse victims, although I don't deny that there is still a long way to go. But I do not regard laws as leaders of public opinion so much as a reflection of them, and the very fact that May felt it expedient to dangle such a proposed bill under our noses suggests a recognition of the fact that people are beginning to take this kind of thing seriously.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I'm sorry but this is really beginning to piss me off (not picking on you especially - it's been everywhere). As far as I can tell, Lori Maddox slept with Bowie willingly. She gave consent. Whether a 13/14/15 year old is capable of giving informed consent is a separate discussion and one that it's worth having.
> However, putting him (and pretty much every single male pop star in the 60s and 70s - I challenge you to find one who didn't sleep with an underage girl) into the same bad box as a paedophile who raped sleeping children, or a man who got his cab to turn around to fuck an unconscious woman (Evans) or a man who raped babies (Watkins) is really not at all helpful. It closes discussion and debate down.



How many underage girls did Bowie sleep with though? There's Lori Maddox, then there's Sable Starr. Did it stop there then?

Bad luck if you get lumped in with the more serious peados if you're just a semi-serious peado. Sorry if that's upsetting to you because Side 2 of Low is good.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> How many underage girls did Bowie sleep with though? There's Lori Maddox, then there's Sable Starr. Did it stop there then?
> 
> Bad luck if you get lumped in with the more serious peados if you're just a semi-serious peado. Sorry if that's upsetting to you because Side 2 of Low is good.


I don't think that's the point trashpony was making. Being just a little bit less binary about whether someone is a "peado" or not is not about excusing Bowie, but about the fact that lumping the likes of Bowie in with Evans or Watkins is completely unhelpful when it comes to any kind of discussion about motives, reasons, understanding of what they do.

As she says, "It closes discussion and debate down."


----------



## trashpony (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> How many underage girls did Bowie sleep with though? There's Lori Maddox, then there's Sable Starr. Did it stop there then?
> 
> Bad luck if you get lumped in with the more serious peados if you're just a semi-serious peado. Sorry if that's upsetting to you because Side 2 of Low is good.


I don't know.

Do you want a fucking spray can?


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> any kind of discussion about motives, reasons, understanding of what they do.



But that's what you mustn't have. Condemnation, loud and clear, is all that some will allow. 

Is the point of closing down discussion that it must be all about the condemners - not those who have suffered nor those who might not suffer in future if there were understanding?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

campanula said:


> I always thought Bowie was a tedious twat so easy for me to condemn but, despite the role of Roy Harper's Stormcock as a  soundscape throughout my entire adult life, I dropped it pretty damn quick on recognition of noncery. I can generally separate unpleasant characters from artistic output...but sex with underage children, with all the horrible allusions to power abuse, cowardly men seeking some sort of validation, affirmation, adoration...completely poisons past and future output from these craven swine. I could never listen to a single Peel show without the term paedophile racketing around my head and the likes of Craig Charles, however amusing my offspring found Red Dwarf, became verboten because I  am unable to dismiss vile attitudes towards powerless minors. As for 'it was different then ' this is utter, utter shite - it was never different - abuse of children, regardless of physical sexual precocity is usually an attitude of despicable, objectifying scum who regard the bodies of minors as a personal playground. This attitude trumps all artistic virtue and stains it irrevocably.



Harper was a regular fixture of Zeppelins entourage for years . Page was fixated with him and the regularly collaborated . Right nest there and no mistake .


----------



## Favelado (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I don't know.
> 
> Do you want a fucking spray can?



I don't know what that means but I like it. I'm going to use it.


----------



## Mation (Jan 12, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> This thread has really made me think - so thanks LiamO for starting it.
> 
> For me, I think the 'zero tolerance' approach raises my hackles because of my own underage experiences. It's a tricky one, because of course I absolutely think grown men should not ever have sex with children; but 15 year old me had a relationship - and eventually sex - with a grown man (21 fwiw). I have been thinking about it a lot for the last 24 hours and I reckon in my case, even with adult perspective, there was no power imbalance. And my conclusion is that it was down to sheer, blind luck. I could just as easily have been in an abusive relationship. Which is why there _does _need to be a clear cut age of consent, obviously. We can't be legislating that children under the age of 16 can have sex with adults, and we'll protect the unlucky ones. It doesn't work like that. HOWEVER the shouty approach has got under my skin, and I think it's because - for me - it's like having my own (fortunate) past mansplained to me. 'Absolutely not, you were manipulated/abused, despite how you feel, because I said so'. Not accusing anyone here of that btw, I mean the discussion in broad terms.
> 
> And here's the rub. The shouty, zero tolerance approach being put forward by men (I don't mean anyone here, really I don't, but sometimes discussion in these terms can feel like 'all men') - by the establishment - is getting up my nose, not because I think it's okay for powerful, adult men to have sex with underage girls, but because it feels (to me) like a triumphant absolution. The establishment, famous for not giving a flying fuck about the imbalance of power regarding adult women in consensual fucking relationships, are jumping up and down about this in a way that's pissing me off.


It's all difficult. When I was 15, my boyfriends, my schoolfriends' boyfriends were all mid-20s. My 24 year-old-boyfriend took me on holiday to Amsterdam for my 16th birthday. Everyone knew. Friends, family. I'm still in touch with some. There was no subsequent pattern of young teen girlfriends. It was just what was then.

I'm not excusing anything abusive, but its hard to _feel_ that it was in my case, even while accepting that it might have been - I was certainly very vulnerable in many ways.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

1927 said:


> I agree (mostly) with you. AFAIK this thread has been the first time this conversation has ever been conducted in a (mostly) non-shouty way on here (barring the pantomime provided by 8den).
> 
> That was made possible IMO simply because, for the first time, we are discussing it in the context of someone who so many people on here have such a genuine love for.


this thread (the 2013 bump onwards) had some very useful discussion - I expect it's no surprise to you that the subject then was John Peel... http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/julie-burchill-on-john-peel.22786/page-5 (also interesting to contrast some people's change of views too.  )


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. A lot of folk take "do what thou wilt" to mean "do what you like", when it's fairly obvious from Crowley's writing, and from accounts by his contemporaries that he meant "do what your will wishes you to do".
> I've also seen people taking the "love under will" bit as some sort of endorsement of sexual slavery, when it's simply a call to control the power of the heart through the power of the mind.



Right so if your will tells you it'd be nice to fuck a kid you go ahead and do it then . That's crowleys advice. And page and Bowie  oth seem to have took their guru crowleys advice to heart, and fucked some kids because their will dictated it so .


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

Mation said:


> I'm not excusing anything abusive, but its hard to _feel_ that it was in my case, even while accepting that it might have been - I was certainly very vulnerable in many ways.


Which is precisely why it's an important, interesting and educational discussion to have; and why shouting down anyone who has anything to say/remember/figure out for themselves isn't helpful. Not that the absolute legal terms aren't relevant or important - but here they are part of a wider discussion about people lives, memories and feelings.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Fair play to him.
> 
> 
> 
> Shame he couldn't have done so at the end. Maybe he has and we have yet to hear it.



I'd say his last message to the world was " after I die, please burn my hard drive "


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Hang on, the only evidence at all that Bowie slept with Lori Maddox seems to come from her.  And now your calling her a deliberate liar?  Theres some back to front fucking thinking going on there.



Let's not get shouty. there are several possible explanations for why she may get her precise age wrong.

1. She doesn't have a baldy notion cos she was a young kid stoned out her box at the time.

2. She is simply mis-remembering. This is not at all unusual.

3. She _wants_ to believe she was older as it makes it all a little less sordid. She may well over time have come to believe that she _was_ older.

4. Or the one I suggested which is kind of like the last one - except I, perhaps a little harshly, suggested she had made herself older to muddy the waters and protect her 'friends'... Messrs Bowie & Page.

Either way, human memory is plastic/pliable. Her birth date and the tour/concert dates which Thora posted are not. They are checkable facts. Thora checked them. I assume she would be perfectly happy to direct you to where you can check them for yourself.



killer b said:


> Hardly. It's really easy to forget exactly how old you were when something happened, but dates of specific things don't change. I don't think Thora has discredited maddox at all.



I agree that Thora has not 'discredited'' Maddox at all. Nor do I believe that was her intention. She simply took Maddox's recollections and cross-checked them with the concert/tour dates. None of which makes her (e2a Maddox's) narrative any less compelling.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

smokedout said:


> Yes, it says she met him on the spiders from mars tour, presumably the long beach gig, when she was 14.  she met him again 'maybe five months later, and they had sex.' nowhere in that interview does she say they had sex after the long beach gig, thats why I assumed you had another source.  That would also have made her 15 when she met Page, as she says.  Given the only testimony we have of these events is hers then I'll take her word for it, not yours ta.



No shed have been 13 then, and he immediately tried to diddle her . She wouldn't go with him. So she was 14 when he eventually managed to drug and diddle her . Most likely after some grooming .


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 12, 2016)

Most people on this thread seem to accept that the law is not there to deal say a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...and are talking about adults in there mid 20s upwards having sex with under aged children/young people. 

So with that in mind I think it is important for adults to be absolute (personally I prefer the word clear) about it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with an under aged child/young person. Some of the things I  read on here in the earlier genuinely disturbed or concerned me. 

This doesn't mean that I think have the right to say that any/every/some one who have had these experiences as an under aged child /young person are damaged or scarred etc. That is nothing to do with me.

Children and young people under the age of 16 develop sexual crushes on older adults, probably always have and probably always will. There is obviously nothing wrong with this but...and this is the important bit for me...the only acceptable thing for an adult to do in that situation is to kindly decline.

For me being clear on this is not me being a man telling women how to view their experiences nor is it me "mansplaining" and nor is me shout or screaming others into submission. To be honest, while men are statistically more likely to be the adult and girls more likely to be the under aged child/young person, it is not unheard of that women are the adults or boys are under aged (I know this is complicated by the higher age of consent for gay sex back in the day due to homophobic laws so to avoid this I am referring to an equal age of consent of 16). In the cases of adult women and under aged boys it has been (and often still is) seen as a joke...lucky boy etc.

Many of us have negative experiences that have shaped us in positive ways and vice versa but in my honest opinion if an adult did something wrong to or with me when I was a child and I have used the experience to be a good and kind adult it does not mean that the adult in questioned should not be held to account.

Sorry for rambling.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They all ran really really fast in the opposite direction. Along with the boys



Deleted scene from Lord of the Flies ?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

killer b said:


> this thread (the 2013 bump onwards) had some very useful discussion - I expect it's no surprise to you that the subject then was John Peel... http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/julie-burchill-on-john-peel.22786/page-5 (also interesting to contrast some people's change of views too.  )



Interesting thread, from long before my time on here. I will read it properly sometime this week (back to work tomorrow).

And no, it's no surprise that a reasonable discussion was possible cos it was JP under discussion and JB doing the attacking.

It will be enlightening to chart various poster's progress/regression when time allows. 

Actually just had a quick squint. 

At least Casually Red got his explanation for his personal journey on this matter in in plenty of time. Pity 8den didn't listen to his advice



Casually Red said:


> No 8den let's not leave aside a lot of things. The things we won't leave aside is she was 13 when Bowie..whose music I truly admire...drugged and fucked that 13 year old child .
> Nor will we leave aside you thinking that's ticketyboo behaviour for any grown adult . Nor will we leave aside you deliberately lying about her age in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable .
> 
> I'd really advise you to drop this one . In the past I've made a cunt of myself sticking up for Elvis and John Peel . I was in denial because I really admired both of them over their contribution to music. Later I had a word with myself and realised despite that they were still exploiting kids for their own twisted gratification . And that was pretty despicable behaviour  for grown men . Noncery actually .
> ...


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They all ran really really fast in the opposite direction. Along with the boys



Nice suit . Saville Row ?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2016)

Favelado said:


> How many underage girls did Bowie sleep with though? There's Lori Maddox, then there's Sable Starr. Did it stop there then?
> 
> Bad luck if you get lumped in with the more serious peados if you're just a semi-serious peado. Sorry if that's upsetting to you because Side 2 of Low is good.



According to that Hammer of the Gods book, underage girls were regularly camped out outside rock stars hotel suites for days on end. All a nonce had to do was open the door and let one in. There's no way of knowing .


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Between marriages, I did have a (brief) relationship with a woman who was just about young enough to have been my daughter. That causes the occasional curling of the toes, on reflection. Though she was 25 at the time, so I'm not making any terrible admissions here...



It's a million miles from what we're talking about tbf. 
Age can be logarithmic in that respect.

25 vs 14 may as well be 100 years in my view.

Not that I have a thing for centenarians.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 12, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Seeing some very SHOUTY people on social media on both sides. Male and female. some refusing to believe that he was anything other than a saint and some shouting at everyone that is slightly sad about his death



Never read the bottom half of the internet.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 12, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They all ran really really fast in the opposite direction. Along with the boys





Casually Red said:


> Nice suit . Saville Row ?





LiamO said:


> Some celebs - because we love them for their artistic genius - get a bye-ball. Others, such as celebrity DJs and TV presenters, don't. Whether an Artiste is perceived as a bit of a drug-feuled hornball or a 'dirty fuckin nonce' seems to be dependent on how cool or how influential you are





LiamO said:


> a) The blatant hypocrisy in how we view what they did. If we like or admire a person's work there is a tendency to focus on their achievements/canon of work rather than their sexual shortcomings. If we _don't _like them then we focus on their sexual proclivities and ignore their work.



Let's see who sticks up for little Cliffy.


----------



## killer b (Jan 12, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Actually just had a quick squint.


it's a valuable read for anyone who's been watching things progress on this thread this afternoon.


----------



## tendril (Jan 12, 2016)

belboid said:


> she wasn't the only girl on the 'scene', but she was the only one definitively fucked by Bowie (which was 8den's point).  Queenie Glam was, according to that, 'linked with' him, but that just means they were all part of that crowd.  Maybe he fucked her too, but there doesn't seem to be anything more about him doing so (and Queenie herself seems to managed to avoid being on the internet too much, so its hard to know much more about her)


In Lori's account, 2 hours after Bowie had sex with her, Sable was invited to join in for a threesome so I would say that it wasn't just Lori that had sex with Bowie.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 12, 2016)

I think it's a fair point that we are more motivated to make sense of the wrongdoings of a man who we have affection for, than one who leaves you indifferent.  

I had a scan through the Peel thread to see whether I'd had much to say, and I can't see a comment, but I've always been pretty dismissive of Peel's a actions as noncey (though he did go on to marry a fifteen year old, so more of an Elvis than a Bowie, maybe).  

But then Peel wasn't an influence on me.   (It was too bloody cold to listen to the radio in my bedroom of an evening: I chose "Terry and June" in the living room instead...)  Whereas Bowie was important in my life.  In some ways shaped the person I became.  And so it isn't that I want to whitewash him - but I am motivated to spend more and deeper thought about what he did, and how I react to that, than I did with Peel.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 12, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> Most people on this thread seem to accept that the law is not there to deal say a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...and are talking about adults in there mid 20s upwards having sex with under aged children/young people.
> 
> So with that in mind I think it is important for adults to be absolute (personally I prefer the word clear) about it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with an under aged child/young person. Some of the things I  read on here in the earlier genuinely disturbed or concerned me.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, that the responsibility to not have sex with a child is with the adult. Always. The point at which is becomes difficult to navigate is when the girl/boy/woman/man says that they feel the relationship was consensual. Obviously there are factors, like very young age or Stockholm Syndrome (?), that would mean it was abuse regardless but in some situations I'm not sure telling that person they are wrong and that they were taken advantage of is the right course of action. I don't know what the answer to this is, or even what I think, though.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

It's worth pointing out that if we're talking unequal power dynamics, Bowie was one of the most famous rock stars on the planet. Which to a rock star-crazy teenager made him just about the most powerful person in existance.


----------



## albionism (Jan 13, 2016)

It's all rather difficult, isn't it? Lori Maddox insists the experience was
not a negative one for her, in fact it seems to be a much cherished
memory, and it's her right to view it that way. Bowie on the other hand,
as an adult, should have fucking known better than to do what he did.
He used his status to take sexual advantage of a child.


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2016)

It hasn't all gone away, Comrade Delta?

the rave scene saw some dubious power dynamics as well.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

jesus christ. every. fucking. thread. 

can't you post about something other than the SWP?


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

Has Gillik competence been referenced in this thread yet?

Rights and Interests of Children - Ministry of Ethics .co.uk




> UNDERAGE SEX & SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003
> Much has been written regarding capacity and consent and ways to approach it. In the case of anyone under 18, contraceptive advice and prescription are backed by Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines. But the legality of a minor engaging in sexual intercourse is a major area. Should the doctor prescribe if he knows that the child under 16 may engage in sexual intercourse?
> 
> 
> ...




Again, *not defending him* but so far as I have read, he didn't ask her age. From the period photos she has dressed and made herself up to appear more mature than the 13/14/15 that is, depending on who's account you read, the age when he had sex with her


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Harper was a regular fixture of Zeppelins entourage for years . Page was fixated with him and the regularly collaborated . Right nest there and no mistake .



Craig Charles?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2016)

There should be some kind of very simple and definitive age testing kit.  Like you take a tiny blood sample and carbon date a person. 

Then we can have precise ages at the time of every encounter and pretend the difference between cases of abuse and perfectly healthy sexual activity is governed by the relationship between someone's birth and the reading on a clock.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 13, 2016)

treelover said:


> Craig Charles?



What about him ?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> What about him ?



Had a thing for robots is what I heard.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 13, 2016)

albionism said:


> He used his status to take sexual advantage of a child.



And some drugs


----------



## treelover (Jan 13, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> What about him ?



he has just been mentioned in context of this thread, never heard anything about him.


----------



## Celyn (Jan 13, 2016)

8ball said:


> There should be some kind of very simple and definitive age testing kit.  Like you take a tiny blood sample and carbon date a person...



Cut person in half and count the rings.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 13, 2016)

8ball said:


> Had a thing for robots is what I heard.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2016)

Celyn said:


> Cut person in half and count the rings.



It would be a step forward.


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And some drugs


I don't believe Lori's account says that Bowie supplied the drugs.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Let's not get shouty. there are several possible explanations for why she may get her precise age wrong.
> 
> 1. She doesn't have a baldy notion cos she was a young kid stoned out her box at the time.
> 
> ...



She could equally have got the circumstances mixed up but still remembered how old she was, it was an interview specifically discussing her age.

There is a fith possibility which is that it didn't happen.  I only say that because it cannot be discounted as a possibility (I think it probably did) and that this did not come from an allegation of abuse like similiar allegations but more of a boast from someone who appears to be quite proud she lost her virginity to a rock star.  FWIW Sadie Starr tells a different story of that night in this book and suggests Lori wasn't present.  Some vile things happened on that scene without a doubt, but Bowie is not the best place to look, from an evidential point of view its a bit thin and its a shame really that this didnt come out properly before he died, then the allegations could have been put to him and been properly investigated - some of us have been banging on about this shit for years, perhaps turning the attention on some of the other, still living possible offenders might be more fruitful.


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

8ball said:


> There should be some kind of very simple and definitive age testing kit.  Like you take a tiny blood sample and carbon date a person.
> 
> Then we can have precise ages at the time of every encounter and pretend the difference between cases of abuse and perfectly healthy sexual activity is governed by the relationship between someone's birth and the reading on a clock.


A case for mandatory identification cards?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I agree with you, that the responsibility to not have sex with a child is with the adult. Always. The point at which is becomes difficult to navigate is when the girl/boy/woman/man says that they feel the relationship was consensual. Obviously there are factors, like very young age or Stockholm Syndrome (?), that would mean it was abuse regardless but in some situations I'm not sure telling that person they are wrong and that they were taken advantage of is the right course of action. I don't know what the answer to this is, or even what I think, though.


 I agree with that, and it's probably counter productive to simply tell a 14 or 15 year old that they've been abused or raped (and as you say that too depends on the circumstances).  It's important to say all that, but the way the girl/young woman thinks about it doesn't alter what the adult male did.  And that's even more the case when you are talking about popstars who have something like an infrastructure in place for gathering up groupies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

Mation said:


> It's all difficult. When I was 15, my boyfriends, my schoolfriends' boyfriends were all mid-20s. My 24 year-old-boyfriend took me on holiday to Amsterdam for my 16th birthday. Everyone knew. Friends, family. I'm still in touch with some. There was no subsequent pattern of young teen girlfriends. It was just what was then.
> 
> I'm not excusing anything abusive, but its hard to _feel_ that it was in my case, even while accepting that it might have been - I was certainly very vulnerable in many ways.


If it doesn't feel like it was abusive, even now at this distance, what meaning does it have to say that it might have been? Because other people are saying it ought to feel like it was abusive? 

I'm actually quite pissed off with people brazenly stating that others are in denial. Sounds to me like they _want_ it to have been abusive in order to validate their black and white position.


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If it doesn't feel like it was abusive, even now at this distance, what meaning does it have to say that it might have been? Because other people are saying it ought to feel like it was abusive?
> 
> I'm actually quite pissed off with people brazenly stating that others are in denial. Sounds to me like they _want_ it to have been abusive in order to validate their black and white position.



Unfortunately the hysteria is overshadowing the measured debate. As it usually does on urban


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

Where?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

tendril said:


> Unfortunately the hysteria is overshadowing the measured debate. As it usually does on urban


 There's been a few flashes of absolutism, but by urban's standards this has been a very measured discussion.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

I don't think that's fair. There have been some heated moments, but I think this thread has been impressively measured. No one that I can remember has been told they are in denial - personal contributions have been respected. Let's not make it hysterical by saying it has been


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I don't think that's fair. There have been some heated moments, but I think this thread has been impressively measured. No one that I can remember has been told they are in denial - personal contributions have been respected. Let's not make it hysterical by saying it has been


Yes, you are right, I yield to that point.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 13, 2016)

The Slammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Someone at the BBC was either taking the piss or issuing a subliminal cry for help when that was invented


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I agree with that, and it's probably counter productive to simply tell a 14 or 15 year old that they've been abused or raped (and as you say that too depends on the circumstances).  It's important to say all that, but the way the girl/young woman thinks about it doesn't alter what the adult male did.  And that's even more the case when you are talking about popstars who have something like an infrastructure in place for gathering up groupies.


I agree. It's difficult to get my head around though, because if I think about it in my own terms _my first boyfriend shouldn't have gone out with me_. And really, actually, he shouldn't have. But he did, and luckily it didn't do me any harm and I was completely safe. So at the same time as thinking he shouldn't have, I also think he was an acceptable first boyfriend. I'm not airing my dirty laundry for the fun of it, only because I think some posters were aghast at ambivalent posts by women early on in the thread and I'm trying to show how for some of us navigating these topics requires a lot of dual thinking. It's because some of us have to square it with our own experiences that we haven't been able to be quite so binary; that's the case for me anyway, it's not due to any particular love for Bowie.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

tendril said:


> Unfortunately the hysteria is overshadowing the measured debate. As it usually does on urban


TBF, a discussion like this wouldn't have even _happened _on most other boards.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> It's worth pointing out that if we're talking unequal power dynamics, Bowie was one of the most famous rock stars on the planet. Which to a rock star-crazy teenager made him just about the most powerful person in existance.


He wasn't that famous at that point. The tour started in some pretty dingy dives, by the end he'd got into fairly big, 'proper' venues, but he was still small time compared to the metal bands.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I don't think that's fair. There have been some heated moments, but I think this thread has been impressively measured. No one that I can remember has been told they are in denial - personal contributions have been respected. Let's not make it hysterical by saying it has been


In some ways, Urban has changed fundamentally. I can recall, probably more than 5 years ago, that any thread with the slightest whiff of noncery about it would have been deluged with the usual posturing and ranting about just how violently a variety of posters would extract retribution. Of course it still goes on - my ignore list is, hopefully temporarily, a little plumper than usual right now - but it's a minority sport now, and it is still possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue without being shouted down by the "hang 'em up by the bollocks" tendency. Who knows, perhaps even they might be learning something from reading some of the more thoughtful posts?

Whatever, I think it's a feather in Urban's cap that this has been possible, and without the usual nannying and overt control that is how some boards attempt - usually unsuccessfully - to regulate debate.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I agree. It's difficult to get my head around though, because if I think about it in my own terms _my first boyfriend shouldn't have gone out with me_. And really, actually, he shouldn't have. But he did, and luckily it didn't do me any harm and I was completely safe. So at the same time as thinking he shouldn't have, I also think he was an acceptable first boyfriend. I'm not airing my dirty laundry for the fun of it, only because I think some posters were aghast at ambivalent posts by women early on in the thread and I'm trying to show how for some of us navigating these topics requires a lot of dual thinking. It's because some of us have to square it with our own experiences that we haven't been able to be quite so binary; that's the case for me anyway, it's not due to any particular love for Bowie.


I think there are differences though, for one thing your boyfriend was probably not a famous pop star. But the main difference that these where not relationship as such,   the girls wanted to hang out with pop stars and sex was basically the price they paid for that privilege. Any sexual relationship between a teenager and an adult has the potential for harm. The particular circumstances with groupies increase the risk of harm in my opinion, and it us down to the adult to evaluate that risk not the teenager. 

I think this post from earlier in the thread is really relevant. 


Lucy Fur said:


> From the comments section after the last link I posted, a former groupie writes:
> 
> Bill LuckyJuly 21, 2015 at 12:33 PM
> 
> This is Susan, not Bill and I was one of those 13 year olds who slept with 30 yr old musicians, None so famous,BUT< what was weird, is that it was a socail model. As if the oppression of sex and women stemming from the Victorian age and before, finally, with the onset of Birth Control, allowed women to become sexually active. THE MISSING piece was that we were not women, we were children and speaking for myself, if these guys would have been willing to hang out with me, like they did with men, I would have been just as happy, The sex was the only way they were willikng to connect with me, I'm not sure if this is a legal matter as much as a social one. I'd LOVE to be able to talk to the very famous men, and ask, with no threat of legal action, how they feel about that behaviour today. Are they regretful....I have actuallhy spoken to one of the men I slept with, who will remain anonymous, but he was well known in the late 60s and his band is remembered will today. He was charmig and apologetic and asked if I was (at now 50) ok? He admitted it was the times and though not justifying the behaviour, he could see that we was swept up in it and never questioned the long term effect it might have on us young girls. I hope this helps give some insight in to the experience....I am ok, REALLY ok, but I did have to do some real therapy and self exploration, Some self forgiveness that I didn't take better care of me, even at the age of 13 and some serious forgivemess to my mom, for allowing me to run the streets at such a young age......


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In some ways, Urban has changed fundamentally. I can recall, probably more than 5 years ago, that any thread with the slightest whiff of noncery about it would have been deluged with the usual posturing and ranting about just how violently a variety of posters would extract retribution. Of course it still goes on - my ignore list is, hopefully temporarily, a little plumper than usual right now - but it's a minority sport now, and it is still possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue without being shouted down by the "hang 'em up by the bollocks" tendency. Who knows, perhaps even they might be learning something from reading some of the more thoughtful posts?
> 
> Whatever, I think it's a feather in Urban's cap that this has been possible, and without the usual nannying and overt control that is how some boards attempt - usually unsuccessfully - to regulate debate.


You're right. Tbh I haven't been posting much apart from crap in the bandwidth thread for a number of years now, but I do remember when one would be severely castigated for not toeing the Urban Party Line as set out by a few very vocal posters.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I think there are differences though, for one thing your boyfriend was probably not a famous pop star. But the main difference that these where not relationship as such,   the girls wanted to hang out with pop stars and sex was basically the price they paid for that privilege. Any sexual relationship between a teenager and an adult has the potential for harm. The particular circumstances with groupies increase the risk of harm in my opinion, and it us down to the adult to evaluate that risk not the teenager.
> 
> I think this post from earlier in the thread is really relevant.


I'm not saying my experience is the same as the groupie/pop-star scenario, my point was that my experience shapes how I react to topics like this.

You're right about potential for harm - which is why it should definitely be treated as verboten, even though it will probably always happen.

I do think the question of groupies is fascinating - more so than the adult pop star, for whom the answer is simple. No. Nope. Just, no. Don't. But girls/young women tripping on excitement, adult environment and quite possibly all sorts of drugs, what does one say to/about them? I know just how bloody hard teenage/preteen girls love their idols. Take a bullet for them hard. Spend all day in a dream-relationship with them hard. So if sex was offered some of them would definitely consent (some I'm sure would blanche and reveal themselves to be children). I mean, of course the answer is that you aren't tying to dissuade the girl. That it rests on the adult to, well, not fuck her. Maybe pop stars need moral guards as well as body guards, to protect others from them. The ego/power trip must be enormous (I do not feel sorry for, or excuse any of them - eta: but I think history has shown these particular people to be incapable of evaluating the risk, and therefore maybe they shouldn't be trusted to).


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I agree. It's difficult to get my head around though, because if I think about it in my own terms _my first boyfriend shouldn't have gone out with me_. And really, actually, he shouldn't have. But he did, and luckily it didn't do me any harm and I was completely safe. So at the same time as thinking he shouldn't have, I also think he was an acceptable first boyfriend. I'm not airing my dirty laundry for the fun of it, only because I think some posters were aghast at ambivalent posts by women early on in the thread and I'm trying to show how for some of us navigating these topics requires a lot of dual thinking. It's because some of us have to square it with our own experiences that we haven't been able to be quite so binary; that's the case for me anyway, it's not due to any particular love for Bowie.


Great post. My laundry similar to yours (first serious boyfriend was a lot older than me, like a very lot, and we're still friends now).


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In some ways, Urban has changed fundamentally. I can recall, probably more than 5 years ago, that any thread with the slightest whiff of noncery about it would have been deluged with the usual posturing and ranting about just how violently a variety of posters would extract retribution. Of course it still goes on - my ignore list is, hopefully temporarily, a little plumper than usual right now - but it's a minority sport now, and it is still possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue without being shouted down by the "hang 'em up by the bollocks" tendency. Who knows, perhaps even they might be learning something from reading some of the more thoughtful posts?


That's just not true. The Peel thread I linked to above has plenty of thoughtful posts, as have many others on similar topics. I think you just remember the shouting best is all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> He wasn't that famous at that point. The tour started in some pretty dingy dives, by the end he'd got into fairly big, 'proper' venues, but he was still small time compared to the metal bands.



first mention of david bowie from 'the times', 7/3/1968, p. 7

but by july 1972 bowie was playing such dingy dives as the festival hall: and being reviewed in the times:


----------



## Winot (Jan 13, 2016)

Really interesting discussion.  Leaving aside the sex thing for a moment, I wonder whether boys have the same hero worship/fanaticism as girls (my impression is that they don't) and what it says about gender roles/expectations that girls do?


----------



## Winot (Jan 13, 2016)

Or is it just that boys' fanaticism is not played out in a sexual way?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I'm not saying my experience is the same as the groupie/pop-star scenario, my point was that my experience shapes how I react to topics like this.
> 
> You're right about potential for harm - which is why it should definitely be treated as verboten, even though it will probably always happen.
> 
> I do think the question of groupies is fascinating - more so than the adult pop star, for whom the answer is no. Nope. Just, no. Don't. But girls/young women tripping on excitement, adult environment and quite possibly all sorts of drugs, what does one say to/about them? I know just how bloody hard teenage/preteen girls love their idols. Take a bullet for them hard. Spend all day in a dream-relationship with them hard. So if sex was offered some of them would definitely consent (some I'm sure would blanche and reveal themselves to be children). I mean, of course the answer is that you aren't tying to dissuade the girl. That it rests on the adult to, well, not fuck her. Maybe pop stars need moral guards as well as body guards, to protect others from them. The ego/power trip must be enormous (I do not feel sorry for, or excuse any of them - eta: but I think history has shown these particular people to be incapable to evaluating the risk, and therefore maybe they shouldn't be trusted to).


I can't find it on the net, but I'm sure I read a Simon Frith thing years ago where the claim was that the appeal of being a groupie was that the object of the groupie's affections would be moving on once the gig was over, and not staying around to cause complications in the groupie's home town - especially if there was still a strong sexual double standard in that home town.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

Winot said:


> Really interesting discussion.  Leaving aside the sex thing for a moment, I wonder whether boys have the same hero worship/fanaticism as girls (my impression is that they don't) and what it says about gender roles/expectations that girls do?


I was wondering similar last night. Not being a boy I don't know, but it seemed that at the age I was worshipping pop/rock stars my male peers were idolising heroes of their own sex. Lusting after famous women seemed to come much later, and wasn't the same kind of fantasy (as far as I could tell). Be interesting to hear some male perspectives  eta: and indeed, male opinions of preteen girls going completely crackers over pop stars. At the time I mean, what did you make of it as a 12 year old boy?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> but by july 1972 bowie was playing such dingy dives as the festival hall: and being reviewed in the times:View attachment 81995


and playing in small venues in universities, and a variety of disco's. As the Ziggy tour went on, he played bigger places each time, but, even at the end, he was 'only' in 1500 seaters, a long way shy of the biggest bands of the day.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Winot said:


> Or is it just that boys' fanaticism is not played out in a sexual way?


who would it play out on? Especially back then.  Everyone couldn't have Suzi Quatro, even if she'd wanted them to


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> I can't find it on the net, but I'm sure I read a Simon Frith thing years ago where the claim was that the appeal of being a groupie was that the object of the groupie's affections would be moving on once the gig was over, and not staying around to cause complications in the groupie's home town - especially if there was still a strong sexual double standard in that home town.


maybe something akin to the motivation of baseball groupies


journal of sport & social issues 22:1 (1998)


----------



## Winot (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I was wondering similar last night. Not being a boy I don't know, but it seemed that at the age I was worshipping pop/rock stars my male peers were idolising heroes of their own sex. Lusting after famous women seemed to come much later, and wasn't the same kind of fantasy (as far as I could tell). Be interesting to hear some male perspectives  eta: and indeed, male opinions of preteen girls going completely crackers over pop stars. At the time I mean, what did you make of it as a 12 year old boy?



Yes I remember having some unsavoury thoughts about Mark Knopfler


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I was wondering similar last night. Not being a boy I don't know, but it seemed that at the age I was worshipping pop/rock stars my male peers were idolising heroes of their own sex. Lusting after famous women seemed to come much later, and wasn't the same kind of fantasy (as far as I could tell). Be interesting to hear some male perspectives  eta: and indeed, male opinions of preteen girls going completely crackers over pop stars. At the time I mean, what did you make of it as a 12 year old boy?


seems to me girls want to be with the object of their adoration while my experience was the thought you could be if not that person then like that person.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> In some ways, Urban has changed fundamentally. I can recall, probably more than 5 years ago, that any thread with the slightest whiff of noncery about it would have been deluged with the usual posturing and ranting about just how violently a variety of posters would extract retribution. Of course it still goes on - my ignore list is, hopefully temporarily, a little plumper than usual right now - but it's a minority sport now, and it is still possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue without being shouted down by the "hang 'em up by the bollocks" tendency. Who knows, perhaps even they might be learning something from reading some of the more thoughtful posts?
> 
> Whatever, I think it's a feather in Urban's cap that this has been possible, and without the usual nannying and overt control that is how some boards attempt - usually unsuccessfully - to regulate debate.


Some  posters here who are not reticent in sticking the knife in over sexual politics are all of a sudden looking for nuance and making excuses for Bowie. This will bite them in the Arsenal.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> and playing in small venues in universities, and a variety of disco's. As the Ziggy tour went on, he played bigger places each time, but, even at the end, he was 'only' in 1500 seaters, a long way shy of the biggest bands of the day.


By July 72 he'd had two singles in the top 10 though. It was building up to a lot of success: David Bowie | full Official Chart History | Official Charts Company


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me girls want to be with the object of their adoration while my experience was the thought you could be if not that person then like that person.


Julie Burchill on Marc Bolan's appeal for her demographic: "you wanted to shag him, mother him, and _be _him".


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me girls want to be with the object of their adoration while my experience was the thought you could be if not that person then like that person.


Yeah. You can see where Lacanian identity politics (woman as receptacle, the have and not have of the phallus/man) came from, but I'm not sure it's as simple as just wanting to be with the famous man. Some of it was wanting to be what these stars were, not to be male but to have what they had.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I'm not saying my experience is the same as the groupie/pop-star scenario, my point was that my experience shapes how I react to topics like this.
> 
> You're right about potential for harm - which is why it should definitely be treated as verboten, even though it will probably always happen.
> 
> I do think the question of groupies is fascinating - more so than the adult pop star, for whom the answer is no. Nope. Just, no. Don't. But girls/young women tripping on excitement, adult environment and quite possibly all sorts of drugs, what does one say to/about them? I know just how bloody hard teenage/preteen girls love their idols. Take a bullet for them hard. Spend all day in a dream-relationship with them hard. So if sex was offered some of them would definitely consent (some I'm sure would blanche and reveal themselves to be children). I mean, of course the answer is that you aren't tying to dissuade the girl. That it rests on the adult to, well, not fuck her. Maybe pop stars need moral guards as well as body guards, to protect others from them. The ego/power trip must be enormous (I do not feel sorry for, or excuse any of them - eta: but I think history has shown these particular people to be incapable of evaluating the risk, and therefore maybe they shouldn't be trusted to).


I agree with most of this, but I am not sure that the ones who are the most likely to say no to sex are the ones who are still closest to being children. It would be extremely difficult for any teenage girls to say no once she finds herself in that situation, and I think it would probably take more maturity not less. Not that I am saying that only the most mature would say no.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I haved long pondered about the development of empathy.  I obviously felt sympathy in my early adulthood when I heard about natural disasters... but I think it was well into my twenties before I developed true empathy - really and automatically felt something of the pain that the flood victime (or whatever) felt.  Obviously people develop this at different rates...  but I don't think I was a monster. Certainly most teenagers don't have it yet (hence the greater incidence of bullying at that age).


it all depends tho, doesnt it?  One of the main groups I work with at the moment is young carers, teenagers who have been looking after (usually) their parents, often on their own, and who have been doing for years.  They tend to be pretty good at empathy, and tend tp be rather more mature than other teens their age.  Many of them are actually more mature than various 20odd year olds that I've known.  

The point being, you can't really talk about '13/14/15 year olds are like this/have reached this stage of development', because they really are all over the shop, some are still astoundingly childish, some are astoundingly grown up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Julie Burchill on Marc Bolan's appeal for her demographic: "you wanted to shag him, mother him, and _be _him".


pls could we keep quotes from the nefandous burchill to a minimum?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> By July 72 he'd had two singles in the top 10 though. It was building up to a lot of success: David Bowie | full Official Chart History | Official Charts Company


yes, he was_ getting there_.  But he still wasn't there then.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> pls could we keep quotes from the nefandous burchill to a minimum?


"The Evil One. SAY NOT HER NAME".


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> By July 72 he'd had two singles in the top 10 though. It was building up to a lot of success: David Bowie | full Official Chart History | Official Charts Company


there is also, i think, a pleasant feeling about being one of the _cognescenti_, being in the _avant garde _if you will, one of the elect who have their own cult.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Some  posters here who are not reticent in sticking the knife in over sexual politics are all of a sudden looking for nuance and making excuses for Bowie. This will bite them in the Arsenal.


Alternatively, it may have given some people pause for thought and context for a less black & white understanding of these kinds of discussions (which I think was the point of the thread in the first place).


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "The Evil One. SAY NOT HER NAME".


She who must not be named.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "The Evil One. SAY NOT HER NAME".


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I think there are differences though, for one thing your boyfriend was probably not a famous pop star. But the main difference that these where not relationship as such,   the girls wanted to hang out with pop stars and sex was basically the price they paid for that privilege. Any sexual relationship between a teenager and an adult has the potential for harm. The particular circumstances with groupies increase the risk of harm in my opinion, and it us down to the adult to evaluate that risk not the teenager.
> 
> I think this post from earlier in the thread is really relevant.





Pickman's model said:


> seems to me girls want to be with the object of their adoration while my experience was the thought you could be if not that person then like that person.



There's  a pernicious tendency in our patriarchal culture, to pretend that teenaged girls aren't horny little beasts (and the corollary - that all teen boys are desperate for sex).  While there might be a testosterone-influenced trend, it's very far from being the rule, and it contributes to the damaging double standard (boy = player - girl = slut) and in some ways more damagingly, contributes to the harm caused by some young boys having sex before they are emotionally ready.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there is also, i think, a pleasant feeling about being one of the _cognescenti_, being in the _avant garde _if you will, one of the elect who have their own cult.


absolutely, and that was especially important for the likes of Bowie, as well as Iggy & Bolan. The people your folks didn't understand, that marked you out as a bit transgressive.  Sooooooo much cooler than David Cassidy


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I agree with most of this, but I am not sure that the ones who are the most likely to say no to sex are the ones who are still closest to being children. It would be extremely difficult for any teenage girls to say no once she finds herself in that situation, and I think it would probably take more maturity not less. Not that I am saying that only the most mature would say no.


Ah no that's not what I meant, but I do agree. What I meant was that one teenage girl might consent and one of the same age might panic and feel very much a child not an adult when confronted with the opportunity for sex. Some of course, due to the power held by the adult, would override that fear and go along with it. All I meant was that it's a hugely subjective discussion. The adult should always, always say no. My point is not that it's acceptable if a girl has consented, just trying to think about the position of being that girl.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> There's  a pernicious tendency in our patriarchal culture, to pretend that teenaged girls aren't horny little beasts (and the corollary - that all teen boys are desperate for sex).  While there might be a testosterone-influenced trend, it's very far from being the rule, and it contributes to the damaging double standard (boy = player - girl = slut) and in some ways more damagingly, contributes to the harm caused by some young boys having sex before they are emotionally ready.


Yes indeed. I wonder if the prevalence of underage girls having relationships with older men is in part because their male peers aren't ready to explore sex and relationships until later than girls are.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

I


killer b said:


> Alternatively, it may have given some people pause for thought and context for a less black & white understanding of these kinds of discussions (which I think was the point of the thread in the first place).


 doubt it but time will tell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Yes indeed. I wonder if the prevalence of underage girls having relationships with older men is in part because their male peers aren't ready to explore sex and relationships until later than girls are.


Not ready, or just not given the chance?!

tbh I think the truth is a bit blunter than that - as has been said a few times now, most 16-year-old girls are not in the slightest bit interested in 16-year-old boys. The reverse isn't true, ime.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> it all depends tho, doesnt it?  One of the main groups I work with at the moment is young carers, teenagers who have been looking after (usually) their parents, often on their own, and who have been doing for years.  They tend to be pretty good at empathy, and tend tp be rather more mature than other teens their age.  Many of them are actually more mature than various 20odd year olds that I've known.
> 
> The point being, you can't really talk about '13/14/15 year olds are like this/have reached this stage of development', because they really are all over the shop, some are still astoundingly childish, some are astoundingly grown up.




Which is way I said "obviously people develop at different rates".  I've taught over 2000 kids in the last 20 years.  There is littlle youcan generalise about that age group.


belboid said:


> yes, he was_ getting there_.  But he still wasn't there then.



Does it matter to the essential point I was making?  That a popular rock star has significantly more status in the eyes of a teenaged fan, than an average 25 year old would? 

Cos if it doesn't matter, it seems an odd thing to score points over...


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> There's  a pernicious tendency in our patriarchal culture, to pretend that teenaged girls aren't horny little beasts (and the corollary - that all teen boys are desperate for sex).  While there might be a testosterone-influenced trend, it's very far from being the rule, and it contributes to the damaging double standard (boy = player - girl = slut) and in some ways more damagingly, contributes to the harm caused by some young boys having sex before they are emotionally ready.


I agree, sorry if I implied otherwise. I tried to be as gender neutral as possible in my post given the topic.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I
> 
> doubt it but time will tell.


look at that Peel thread I posted - loads of changed positions between the two parts, and between that and this thread. People change their minds all the time, usually after talking about something.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not ready, or just not given the chance?!
> 
> tbh I think the truth is a bit blunter than that - as has been said a few times now, most 16-year-old girls are not in the slightest bit interested in 16-year-old boys. The reverse isn't true, ime.


Not ready.  I've worked with young men who have bravely expressed their discomfort at everyone assuming they're ready for sex.  

This myth is behind the revolting double standard shown by some when they refer to stories of older women having sex with young teenaged boys.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 13, 2016)

Ive been thinking about this and how/why thinking has changed. The internet and social media now deters a lot of stars from dubious behaviour simply because its easier to take and share photographs, people post on social media about their exploits (teenage girls spend half their life on FB and similar it seems), emails / phones etc are relatively easily hacked by the media. Most celebs go out of their way to avoid groupies and even ordinary fans in anything other than public situations because of this. I remember well being able to get backstage at gigs so, so easily - nowadays the security around most bands of any note is phenomenal and the 'stars' are wrapped in a protective bubble to prevent bad press.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Which is way I said "obviously people develop at different rates".  I've taught over 2000 kids in the last 20 years.  There is littlle youcan generalise about that age group.
> 
> 
> Does it matter to the essential point I was making?  That a popular rock star has significantly more status in the eyes of a teenaged fan, than an average 25 year old would?
> ...


I thought I was having a conversation, I have zero interest in scoring points.  There have been several people talking about what 13/14/15 year olds ARE like, as if it is fixed, the point I was making, was agreeing with you about, was that that is not really the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> Not ready.  I've worked with young men who have bravely expressed their discomfort at everyone assuming they're ready for sex.
> 
> This myth is behind the revolting double standard shown by some when they refer to stories of older women having sex with young teenaged boys.


Fair enough. fwiw my experience was one of not even getting the chance to find out if I was ready. Lots of older teenage boys pretend not to be virgins. Even later, 18-20 years old - at that age, you _definitely_ don't admit to virginity. I only discovered much later that I had been far from the only one.


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not ready, or just not given the chance?!


I think it's a bit more complicated than that either / or. Girls are sold romance from the age of about 2 for instance, more than boys are. But also I reckon 'status' - not always fame but something like it - does play a part who is attractive to teenaged girls (as in, why do 16 year old girls often tend to fancy men quite a lot older than them instead of just getting a crush on a boy in their class).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it's a bit more complicated than that either / or. Girls are sold romance from the age of about 2 for instance, more than boys are. But also I reckon 'status' - not always fame but something like it - does play a part who is attractive to teenaged girls (as in, why do 16 year old girls often tend to fancy men quite a lot older than them instead of just getting a crush on a boy in their class).


And in case I sound like I'm resentful, I'm not at all. I was hopeless with girls at that age. It wasn't their fault I was hopeless.  

But being hopeless isn't quite the same as not being ready.


----------



## Winot (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> who would it play out on? Especially back then.  Everyone couldn't have Suzi Quatro, even if she'd wanted them to



From my experience (at an all boys school in the early 1980s) it played out in nerdiness - painstakingly memorising the words to the songs; copying the band logo into the back of your exercise book; reciting the names of the band members.  Much like male football fanaticism.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Winot said:


> From my experience (at an all boys school in the early 1980s) it played out in nerdiness - painstakingly memorising the words to the songs; copying the band logo into the back of your exercise book; reciting the names of the band members.  Much like male football fanaticism.


exercise book?  Not on to your schoolbag?  Lightweight.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> exercise book?  Not on to your schoolbag?  Lightweight.



In my (awful) school, the logo on the rucksack was specifically for metal bands.


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Ah no that's not what I meant, but I do agree. What I meant was that one teenage girl might consent and one of the same age might panic and feel very much a child not an adult when confronted with the opportunity for sex. Some of course, due to the power held by the adult, would override that fear and go along with it. All I meant was that it's a hugely subjective discussion. The adult should always, always say no. My point is not that it's acceptable if a girl has consented, just trying to think about the position of being that girl.


That's sort of what I was getting at when I made this post


----------



## smokedout (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me girls want to be with the object of their adoration while my experience was the thought you could be if not that person then like that person.



This is what I remember, if you didn't want to be a footballer you wanted to be a rock star - thats why the misogyny displayed was so toxic, it was reproduced by teenage boys in the playgrounds and later clubs and pubs


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 13, 2016)

Lucy Fur said:


> Luc Bessons "Leon" has overtones, and in the original script they became lovers, although this was rewritten in the final version.


Sarah's relationship with the charismatic yet sinister Goblin King in Labyrinth has flirtatious, if not sexual, overtones. It ends with Sarah realising that Jareth has no power over her and that such power is an illusion. You could certainly draw parallels with young girls being bewitched by older male pop stars.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Right so if your will tells you it'd be nice to fuck a kid you go ahead and do it then . That's crowleys advice. And page and Bowie  oth seem to have took their guru crowleys advice to heart, and fucked some kids because their will dictated it so .



Will isn't what you want. It's not about satisfying desires. Do yourself a favour and do some reading - even just a hundred words or so will do - on Crowley's ideas about "true will".  
BTW, Bowie was never a Crowleyite or a Thelemite. He mentioned Crowley in a song. Once.
As for Page, he was and is a collector of occult writings and paraphenalia, but in 30-plus years of knowing people who actually take occult philosophies seriously, I've not yet met one who took Page's occultism seriously, or ever worked with him. I know quite a few that took advantage of his library, though.

But hey, if you want to bang on about what Crowley's "advice" meant, and construct some kind of "web of nonces" tied to it, go right ahead. You'll be following luminaries such as David Icke down that path.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Favelado said:


> Cliff Richard.



Cliff Richard is Satan.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cliff Richard is Satan.


cliff richard is worse than satan as satan doesn't pretend to be a christian and was never a mate of mary whitehouse's.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Julie Burchill on Marc Bolan's appeal for her demographic: "you wanted to shag him, mother him, and _be _him".



Casually Red on Jul..spit..Burch...bokes...appeal to his demographic .

" pity Bolan never crashed his mini into her "


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Sarah's relationship with the charismatic yet sinister Goblin King in Labyrinth has flirtatious, if not sexual, overtones. It ends with Sarah realising that Jareth has no power over her and that such power is an illusion. You could certainly draw parallels with young girls being bewitched by older male pop stars.


I'm not sure if there's much bewitchment going on, really - girls are conditioned to find success attractive (for fairly obvious reasons - for pretty much all of human history, the vast majority of woman's security and safety has been entirely dependent on some man or the other, and a successful man is more likely to be able to provide that safety and security). It's not at all surprising that, when discovering their sexuality for the first time it's the most visibly and glamorously successful people - pop stars & actors, but also closer to home older men, teachers etc - end up the object of their devotion. 

(/mansplain)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

comrade spurski said:


> Most people on this thread seem to accept that the law is not there to deal say a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...and are talking about adults in there mid 20s upwards having sex with under aged children/young people.



The law is absolutely there to deal with "...a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...". The majority of USI (unlawful sexual intercourse) convictions are for such relationships, rather than for more obviously predatory relationships.



> So with that in mind I think it is important for adults to be absolute (personally I prefer the word clear) about it is never acceptable for an adult to have sex with an under aged child/young person. Some of the things I  read on here in the earlier genuinely disturbed or concerned me.



The problem is that the law is, and always has been, unevenly enforced (many people have mentioned Bill Wyman), so the message that the actual statute sends is weak enough that people break it - some unintentionally, some deliberately.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

tendril said:


> That's sort of what I was getting at when I made this post


No, you really weren't. That post was about the subjectivity of appearance and how an adult might use the fact that he didn't know the age of the child to defend him (or her) self. You claim the pics of Maddox look more mature than her real age, whereas I think she looks very young indeed. So it is subjective yes, but that wasn't my point at all.

What I was getting at was the subjectivity of how an underage girl might feel about consent. I was considering the agency of those girls, as I felt it was an aspect being left out of this discussion. I'm not really interested in the nuances of whether an adult _knows _that someone he is having sex with is underage. It's his business to know. Rich white men have plenty of agency.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The law is absolutely there to deal with "...a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...". The majority of USI (unlawful sexual intercourse) convictions are for such relationships, rather than for more obviously predatory relationships.


Didn't know that about the US, but that's not true here. The US tends to be very black and white about rules.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Let's see who sticks up for little Cliffy.



He doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. He has Satan doing that.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> yes, he was_ getting there_.  But he still wasn't there then.


Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly  Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Didn't know that about the US, but that's not true here. The US tends to be very black and white about rules.



I'm talking about the Home Office crime stats. There aren't many convictions, and most of them are for unlawful sex in relationships where there's one or two years between parties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly  Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.


radio 1 you mean?  in the 1970s?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Winot said:


> Or is it just that boys' fanaticism is not played out in a sexual way?



I dunno about that. I knew a couple of younger male colleagues in the '80s who were both out to seduce Morrissey if they could.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Winot said:


> Yes I remember having some unsavoury thoughts about Mark Knopfler



Me too.
Unsavoury for Knopfler, that is, as most of the thoughts were about ripping out his vocal chords.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> He doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. He has Satan doing that.


even satan wants nothing to do with cliffy. i suppose he'll have to make do with 8den's dubious support.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm talking about the Home Office crime stats. There aren't many convictions, and most of them are for unlawful sex in relationships where there's one or two years between parties.


There are guidelines regarding prosecution:



> In deciding whether or not to prosecute, prosecutors should have careful regard to the factors below. The weight to be attached to a particular factor will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. The factors are:
> 
> The age and understanding of the offender. This may include whether the offender has been subjected to any exploitation, coercion, threat, deception, grooming or manipulation by another which has led him or her to commit the offence;
> The relevant ages and levels of maturity of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
> ...



from here

However, I admit I hadn't realised how inflexibly the law is set up here - ie technically, two 15-year-olds having sex are breaking the law, which is kind of absurd. 

We still have a way to go regarding the law on this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are guidelines regarding prosecution:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tbh when i was a teenager we all knew that _technically_ the law was being broken all the time. i don't see why it's news.


----------



## tendril (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> No, you really weren't. That post was about the subjectivity of appearance and how an adult might use the fact that he didn't know the age of the child to defend him (or her) self. You claim the pics of Maddox look more mature than her real age, whereas I think she looks very young indeed. So it is subjective yes, but that wasn't my point at all.
> 
> What I was getting at was the subjectivity of how an underage girl might feel about consent. I was considering the agency of those girls, as I felt it was an aspect being left out of this discussion. I'm not really interested in the nuances of whether an adult _knows _that someone he is having sex with is underage. It's his business to know. Rich white men have plenty of agency.


Ah, yes, sorry. My bad, misread your post.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> radio 1 you mean?  in the 1970s?


Yep. Pretty sure it was Radio 1 - have I misremembered?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh when i was a teenager we all knew that _technically_ the law was being broken all the time. i don't see why it's news.


You were a teenager quite a while ago. The law has been updated since then.

but well done for being so great.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly  Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.



UK/US two very different markets in music terms though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> cliff richard is worse than satan as satan doesn't pretend to be a christian and was never a mate of mary whitehouse's.



So what you're saying is that Satan is Cliff's bitch, rather than Cliff being Satan's bitch?


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

Cid said:


> UK/US two very different markets in music terms though.


Aye, I don't really know what the US effect was tbf. Someone will probably google it.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2016)

Cliff is a manifestation of the old gods, I mean ffs look at his name and think about all that it implies.


----------



## laptop (Jan 13, 2016)

All that research on whether Bowie was famous on that day...

Doesn't Lori say in the much-linked book "That was the day he became famous"?

To me that seemed very sad. Was she on a girl-trainspottery mission to "collect" the famous? Sad, because it reeked of a consolation for screwing loads of guys who never made the grade...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There are guidelines regarding prosecution:
> 
> 
> 
> from here



Unfortunately, the guidelines aren't particularly flexible, or at least aren't interpreted as such by the courts.



> However, I admit I hadn't realised how inflexibly the law is set up here - ie technically, two 15-year-olds having sex are breaking the law, which is kind of absurd.
> 
> We still have a way to go regarding the law on this.



We do with most juvenile law. It's a clusterfuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You were a teenager quite a while ago. The law has been updated since then.
> 
> but well done for being so great.


i'm sorry you feel so inferior.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> Aye, I don't really know what the US effect was tbf. Someone will probably google it.



Space Oddity at 15 in 1973, before that 71 (the Jean Genie), 65 (Starman) in 1972. I think it reflects what belboid was saying, his career (at least stateside) really took off as that tour (his first solo tour) progressed. And, seemingly, especially after his two LA (well, Long Beach) dates - March 10/12, then the 15 spot is April 7th.

e2a: I say took off, he doesn't feature that much in the US charts. At least not in the Billboard top 100.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Cid said:


> Cliff is a manifestation of the old gods, I mean ffs look at his name and think about all that it implies.


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2016)

Does anyone else remember Just17 magazine ? Aimed I think at girls aged around 14 or so.. it had huge glossy pullout posters of things like John Bon Jovi topless, almost lifesized, in a pair of tight leather trousers. I don't think boy's mags with similar centrefolds followed for a few years at least.


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does anyone else remember Just17 magazine ? Aimed I think at girls aged around 14 or so.. it had huge glossy pullout posters of things like John Bon Jovi topless, almost lifesized, in a pair of tight leather trousers. I don't think boy's mags with similar centrefolds followed for a few years at least.


It was Tammy and Jackie - and Disco45! - for me in the 70s, I think Just17 was later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> It was Tammy and Jackie - and Disco45! - for me in the 70s, I think Just17 was later.


i suppose the magazine db was perusing in the early 70s was below17


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>


I suppose after he split from Cash the legit roles dried up.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2016)

Just 17 was 1983-1997 (or 2004, but limited), I remember it. Er... as a thing that girls read of course. I think that must have been when I  was at primary school (went to boys schools from 11 on and my sister was into football and stuff, then punk so eschewed such things) which is a little disturbing. Possibly, not knowing the content.

e2a: actually 11-13 I went to a semi-mixed school, so could have been then.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

In the 70s, we read Jackie magazine and Mates - see below. The cover features Woody from the Bay City Rollers who was 19 in this photo. The magazine was aimed at school girls. Basically, the media very much encouraged girls under the age of consent to think it was absolutely fine to be in relationships (and have sex) with adults. 

I don't think that would happen today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> In the 70s, we read Jackie magazine and Mates - see below. The cover features Woody from the Bay City Rollers who was 19 in this photo. The magazine was aimed at school girls. Basically, the media very much encouraged girls under the age of consent to think it was absolutely fine to be in relationships (and have sex) with adults.
> 
> I don't think that would happen today.


slik of course midge ure's band before he joined the ex-sex pistol glen matlock in the rich kids


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> In the 70s, we read Jackie magazine and Mates - see below. The cover features Woody from the Bay City Rollers who was 19 in this photo. The magazine was aimed at school girls. Basically, the media very much encouraged girls under the age of consent to think it was absolutely fine to be in relationships (and have sex) with adults.
> 
> I don't think that would happen today.


It's not a million miles from how teeny pop groups singers are encouraged to hide any girlfriends to allow their fans to fantasize


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> slik of course midge ure's band before he joined the ex-sex pistol glen matlock in the rich kids


Do you remember Billy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Do you remember Billy?


no, when i was younger i was a big sex pistols fan and then got interested in the bands they went on to, which for glen matlock was rich kids, john lydon's pil and then the (to my mind) more interesting journeys of paul cook and steve jones: not to mention sid vicious's truncated career.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I was wondering similar last night. Not being a boy I don't know, but it seemed that at the age I was worshipping pop/rock stars my male peers were idolising heroes of their own sex. Lusting after famous women seemed to come much later, and wasn't the same kind of fantasy (as far as I could tell). Be interesting to hear some male perspectives  eta: and indeed, male opinions of preteen girls going completely crackers over pop stars. At the time I mean, what did you make of it as a 12 year old boy?


I think that there is a male analogue - many adolescent boys would have had posters of particular female stars on their bedroom walls (or, if they were somewhat shyer *cough* just have carried a torch for one). I think there is a difference: it seems that we might well have quite deliberately chosen targets for our youthful obsessions that were even more unattainable than rock stars! I think that's probably true for most girls, too - I don't imagine that a very large proportion of girls with David Cassidy (or Justin Bieber ) posters on their walls would actually wish to end up having sex with them.

And, by the time boys have reached the same level of emotional maturity as girls (I've seen it suggested that boys might attain the level of emotional maturity girls exhibit at 14-15 by their very late teens or early 20s), they're significantly older, and less prone to having their naivete taken advantage of.

I can remember, as a fairly young person, seeing footage of girls at Beatles concerts - that classic shot of young teenage girls in Edna Everage glasses tearing at their hair, sobbing, and being carried, limp, from the auditorium - and being quite shocked and utterly perplexed by what was going on. Even as an adult, I find it difficult to relate to the kind of emotional state that was being demonstrated in that footage, but it's undeniable it went on, and still, perhaps to a slightly less intense level, does.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Some  posters here who are not reticent in sticking the knife in over sexual politics are all of a sudden looking for nuance and making excuses for Bowie. This will bite them in the Arsenal.


I think that at least some of that "excuse-making" might be in reaction to the less nuanced views being expressed, although some (mainly female) posters have been very enlightening in their expression of the cognitive dissonance between holding a long-term admiration for Bowie and dealing with the notion of him as a sexual abuser.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> The point being, you can't really talk about '13/14/15 year olds are like this/have reached this stage of development', because they really are all over the shop, some are still astoundingly childish, some are astoundingly grown up.


This is very true, although I think we can gently generalise to some extent, providing we keep it in mind that we _are_ generalising, and can't then go back and apply our conclusions universally.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that there is a male analogue - many adolescent boys would have had posters of particular female stars on their bedroom walls (or, if they were somewhat shyer *cough* just have carried a torch for one). I think there is a difference: it seems that we might well have quite deliberately chosen targets for our youthful obsessions that were even more unattainable than rock stars! I think that's probably true for most girls, too - I don't imagine that a very large proportion of girls with David Cassidy (or Justin Bieber ) posters on their walls would actually wish to end up having sex with them.
> 
> And, by the time boys have reached the same level of emotional maturity as girls (I've seen it suggested that boys might attain the level of emotional maturity girls exhibit at 14-15 by their very late teens or early 20s), they're significantly older, and less prone to having their naivete taken advantage of.
> 
> I can remember, as a fairly young person, seeing footage of girls at Beatles concerts - that classic shot of young teenage girls in Edna Everage glasses tearing at their hair, sobbing, and being carried, limp, from the auditorium - and being quite shocked and utterly perplexed by what was going on. Even as an adult, I find it difficult to relate to the kind of emotional state that was being demonstrated in that footage, but it's undeniable it went on, and still, perhaps to a slightly less intense level, does.


I'm intrigued - did/do teenage boys feel jealousy towards famous men getting that level of admiration from teenage girls? Or does it heighten the boys' admiration for that celebrity?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I'm intrigued - did/do teenage boys feel jealousy towards famous men getting that level of admiration from teenage girls? Or does it heighten the boys' admiration for that celebrity?


That's a good question. Remembering for me, the pop/rock stars I was into, I didn't actually care either way whether they appealed to girls. If anything it might have put me off them.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that at least some of that "excuse-making" might be in reaction to the less nuanced views being expressed, although some (mainly female) posters have been very enlightening in their expression of the cognitive dissonance between holding a long-term admiration for Bowie and dealing with the notion of him as a sexual abuser.


Never seen much nuance expressed before with regard to these matters on Urban by either gender. The difference seems to be they liked his music so look for excuses in this instance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that there is a male analogue - many adolescent boys would have had posters of particular female stars on their bedroom walls (or, if they were somewhat shyer *cough* just have carried a torch for one).


wendy james a particular favourite of my contemporaries


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If anything it might have put me off them.


I hadn't considered that, but yes. It's a perfect storm; there ought really to be more supervision of famous men. Time has proved that, although they should, on the whole they don't act responsibly towards underage girls and are surrounded by enablers (and cover-uppers) rather than ... monitors? Er, supervisors - people without that celebrity's best interests at heart.


----------



## bimble (Jan 13, 2016)

My recollection of being a teenaged girl is that you were pretty much expected to have highly sexualised topless pictures of grown men blue tacked to your wall, that you'd pulled out of Smash Hits magazine or whatever.Don't know but get the impression that boys bedrooms weren't quite the same way in those days..


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

bimble said:


> My recollection of being a teenaged girl is that you were pretty much expected to have highly sexualised topless pictures of grown men blue tacked to your wall, that you'd pulled out of Smash Hits magazine or whatever.Don't know but get the impression that boys bedrooms weren't quite the same way in those days..


there was the Kate Bush poster with her 'blowing little nipple kisses' (as she put it) which was very popular


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Yes indeed. I wonder if the prevalence of underage girls having relationships with older men is in part because their male peers aren't ready to explore sex and relationships until later than girls are.


I think there's a good point here. If - as they tend to do - younger girls are tending to naturally find themselves attracted to older young men, then there is perhaps less of an impediment to extend that to significantly older men, particularly if they are charismatic and/or perceived as powerful or high-status.

Particularly as there is quite a lot of evidence to support the idea that female sexual attraction is, in part, driven by a desire to find partners who are "successful" by some standard relevant to the species in question (big colourful tail feathers, or a stage presence and lots of amplifiers  ).

I'm not suggesting that we reduce the entire complex area of human sexual activity to such simplistic notions, but they will - and do - play their part, and in combination with other factors may well play out in ways which don't, at first sight, fit our preconceptions about the sexuality of young women (in this case).


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Never seen much nuance expressed before with regard to these matters on Urban by either gender. The difference seems to be they liked his music so look for excuses in this instance.


I hope you're not sweeping up everyone participating in this discussion with the same brush. Cos I for one don't give a monkey's about Bowie's music. Isn't it good enough that there *is* a nuanced discussion happening now?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 13, 2016)

the shirley manson poster had very little to do with the musical quality of Garbage (although I'm not knocking  them, they had some tunes). See also gwen stefani/no doubt


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 13, 2016)

I had the occasional FHM style sexy women pinned up during the mid 90s. Baywatch era and all that. Seemed very normal among the nightclub/festival posters. By age 18 they'd come down (though I did keep a rather sultry looking PJ Harvey one up).


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

Debbie Harry posters


----------



## Winot (Jan 13, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> the shirley manson poster had very little to do with the musical quality of Garbage (although I'm not knocking  them, they had some tunes). See also gwen stefani/no doubt



There can't have been _that_ many tennis fans either.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

A friend had an incredible lamboghini/panther/swimsuit model combo poster on his teenage wall.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> there was the Kate Bush poster with her 'blowing little nipple kisses' (as she out it) which was very popular


I had a Debbie Harry poster and a Kate Bush one.


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2016)

It is all very tricky isn't it. I, like pretty much everyone, am a product of my lived experiences and, my adolescence was a fucking train-crash. Mum had died, in care, rebellious and hateful teenager, drugs...fuck me, the whole miserable edifice...and unlike many young women, I do not look back on my sexual awakening with fond memories...because there was a bloody great gap from being 11. 12 and having all those fantasies (which frequently manifested themselves as girl on girl crushes) and the horrible reality of working a summer season in Torquay and being bullied into having sex by no end of predatory men.it certainly didn't involve long-term boyfriends of any age...Of course, my personal narrative was being a rebel, outside of the usual social constraints and so forth...but I was also scared, lonely and utterly desperate for intimacy and comfort. I have absolutely no problems in upholding the age of consent rules (although I agree, these ages are often arbitrary)  because not all girls are ensconced in loving families and for sure, however much we tell ourselves we are in charge, we are not. Pfft, I am not talking about the usual phenomenon of having a boyf a few years older - that was a given precisely because young males were generally a bit slow on the uptake...but having exploitative sex with men who were in the late 20s, 30s and older. My partner's father, a man I personally loathed, had made a habit his entire life of selecting very young women to become involved with - the age differences were so much that my sweetheart's stepmother is younger than I am whilst his mother was a only a few years older than me. I find this very hard to understand and can only ascribe it to some sort of arrogant dominance thing (I suspect this much older man saw himself as a sage fatherly type...these women were his proteges, moulded and shaped by him alone... who also liked sex.
At the very least, I am clear that while the difference between childhood and adulthood are variable, it seems better to operate a safety first principle and continue to insist that young women and girls should have legal protection, particularly when the power equations are not just predicated on age alone.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

When I was a teenager we all read stuff like Sugar and Bliss magazine. Remember nagging my mum to let me buy them. Yeah there was a race to lose your virginity as well.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2016)

campanula said:


> At the very least, I am clear that while the difference between childhood and adulthood are variable, it seems better to operate a safety first principle and continue to insist that young women and girls should have legal protection, particularly when the power equations are not just predicated on age alone.


Indeed, and I agree that that last phrase is pretty much the crux of the matter.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

There was huge pressure on teenage girls to have sex. I wasn't friends with any of the boys they all hung out with so don't know if it was the same for them. A lot of people were going out with guys in their 20s.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I hope you're not sweeping up everyone participating in this discussion with the same brush. Cos I for one don't give a monkey's about Bowie's music. Isn't it good enough that there *is* a nuanced discussion happening now?


I'm not sure to be frank. Grown men having sex with kids is just wrong.


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2016)

It is fair to say that I am 9 years older than my partner...who was a mere 21 when he got involved in my life - not really sure how these differences go when the gender differences are reversed. Not impressed with terms such as 'cougar' (sigh)


----------



## peterkro (Jan 13, 2016)

I'll try and be honest here.Growning up at primary school in the late fifties there was quite a bit of sexual experimentation going on,mainly of the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" type of thing.Then at intermediate school (age ten and eleven) it got more advanced, touchy feely stuff,there wasn't much in the way of age difference involved.Then with high school at twelve (I didn't attend much so experience is limited), but there was a largish group of boys and girls who were having full sex.With leaving school at fifteen and going out into the real world (arf) the world of younger girls having sex with older boys suddenly appeared,as far as I'm aware it mostly came with in the three years age difference that is often seen as not exploititive and it was common.The starfucking thing appeared as well,working on a Disney show (down loading and moving out) showed me  numerous girls trying to get off with the actors (bit of a mistake that they were nearly all gay),and a bit later with the cast of Hair and what not.
I guess what I'm saying is it not just pop stars who did this (although they have more power and "star" quality than most blokes and exploited it).
Saying this there was a lot of gruesome sexual exploitation going on particularly in the sub groups of bikies,the police (I'm ashamed to say I attended a couple of police parties and the way they treated young girls was disgusting) and the military (both kiwi ones and yanks who where pretty thick on the ground at that time).


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

21 is above the age of consent, I think above 16 it is about the maturity levels of the partners and age stops coming into it to the same extent.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> 21 is above the age of consent, I think above 16 it is about the maturity levels of the partners and age stops coming into it to the same extent.


 Over 16 and enthusiastic consent is all that counts.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I'm not sure to be frank. Grown men having sex with kids is just wrong.


I have missed several pages, but is there anyone saying otherwise?


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I'm not sure to be frank. Grown men having sex with kids is just wrong.


I agree. I don't think anyone disagrees. But should it not therefore be talked about? Leaving aside the grown men, because I'm not convinced there are nuances I want to discuss there, why can't this conversation be just as much - if not more so - about the kids swept up/left in the wake of all this? I would like to discuss their (my) agency, not shut it down because_ the men were wrong_.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

Do groupies exist to the same extent they did then after Savile etc? I have no idea tbh I don't follow this stuff at all.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

Also the pop music industry is massively male dominated with only a few exceptions (Beyonce, Lady Gaga etc) I think someone uploaded a graphic showing what the reading festival would look like if it only included bands with at least one woman in them, hardly anyone. Could that have something to do with it?


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2016)

Surely the pop-star media star pin-up was as much predicated on the sheer impossible distance between youngsters in their bedrooms and the objects of their adoration. A completely safe fantasy purely because of the sheer unlikelihood of real life interaction.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Also the pop music industry is massively male dominated with only a few exceptions (Beyonce, Lady Gaga etc) I think someone uploaded a graphic showing what the reading festival would look like if it only included bands with at least one woman in them, hardly anyone. Could that have something to do with it?


it's more to do with what boys are socialised to find attractive, I think. Power & success aren't really involved (in fact are negatives).


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Over 16 and enthusiastic consent is all that counts.


To whom?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> To whom?


both partners presumably


----------



## cesare (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Also the pop music industry is massively male dominated with only a few exceptions (Beyonce, Lady Gaga etc) I think someone uploaded a graphic showing what the reading festival would look like if it only included bands with at least one woman in them, hardly anyone. Could that have something to do with it?


Dunno - I watched the Christmas TOTP and was struck by how many female artists were on plus teh kids are all talking about Adele, Jess Glynne, Fleur East, Selena Gomez etc


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "The Evil One. SAY NOT HER NAME".


Indeed, though as we've mentioned the john peel thread she did call him out on his behaviour pretty much before anyone else.  I'm sure it was part of her contraversialism, but she got it right in terms of both the behaviour itself and also the free pass he got in the media.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I agree. I don't think anyone disagrees. But should it not therefore be talked about? Leaving aside the grown men, because I'm not convinced there are nuances I want to discuss there, why can't this conversation be just as much - if not more so - about the kids swept up/left in the wake of all this? I would like to discuss their (my) agency, not shut it down because_ the men were wrong_.


I have no wish to silence anyone. I think another thread that explores the choices (informed or not) that young girls make would be very useful. I don't deny the validity of these girls feelings either. If my daughter said when she was 13 that she loved and was in a relationship with an older man, I would not say she was silly etc but I would have stopped it from continuing.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> To whom?


To society.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> To society.


Then it is a horribly reductive position.

If, by "to society", you mean "legally", then you cannot have paid any attention to poster after poster (including me) who has explained, clearly and patiently, why the mere question of legality is only a small part of the issue. And yet you haven't seen fit to challenge that argument beyond making bald statements like this.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Then it is a horribly reductive position.
> 
> If, by "to society", you mean "legally", then you cannot have paid any attention to poster after poster (including me) who has explained, clearly and patiently, why the mere question of legality is only a small part of the issue. And yet you haven't seen fit to challenge that argument beyond making bald statements like this.


Anyone having sex with someone without gaining their enthusiastic consent is a cunt of the highest order. Do you disagree?


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> I have no wish to silence anyone. I think another thread that explores the choices (informed or not) that young girls make would be very useful. I don't deny the validity of these girls feelings either. If my daughter said when she was 13 that she loved and was in a relationship with an older man, I would not say she was silly etc but I would have stopped it from continuing.


Why another thread? Why can't one that discusses men who were wrong also include the girls who were not wrong?* They're connected after all - i don't think one should be discussed without acknowledging the other in fact. Although I think I've run out of 2ps to spend 

Doesn't mean I think another thread is a bad idea 

*I've put that really bluntly, but i hope people know what i mean.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

cesare said:


> Dunno - I watched the Christmas TOTP and was struck by how many female artists were on plus teh kids are all talking about Adele, Jess Glynne, Fleur East, Selena Gomez etc


frankly i'd be interested to find out how many bands' managers are women.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Why another thread?


this is urban. we like threads.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Anyone having sex with someone without gaining their enthusiastic consent is a cunt of the highest order. Do you disagree?


what is 'enthusiastic' consent?  What if its only keen consent, or even milder (but still consent)?

And regarding 'over-16s' - is that fine when its, say, a 50 year old and a 17 year old?  Even tho, as we've affirmed throughout the thread, plenty of seventeen year olds are less mature than plenty of 15 year olds?


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this is urban. we like threads.


Do we also like mutual exclusivity?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Do we also like mutual exclusivity?


depends on the rates it pays. might be better than a bank.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly i'd be interested to find out how many bands' managers are women.


My cousin's wife is a singer-songwriter's (I won't say which one) manager.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> depends on the rates it pays. might be better than a bank.


If likes were interest...


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Anyone having sex with someone without gaining their enthusiastic consent is a cunt of the highest order. Do you disagree?


No, of course I don't disagree. But the debate has gone considerably further than that, and nobody's actually disagreeing with your _ad nauseam_ restating of this fact.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that there is a male analogue - many adolescent boys would have had posters of particular female stars on their bedroom walls (or, if they were somewhat shyer *cough* just have carried a torch for one). I think there is a difference: it seems that we might well have quite deliberately chosen targets for our youthful obsessions that were even more unattainable than rock stars!



As a hetero teenager in 1963/4, the wall above my bed (i shared one room with two brothers) had pictures of the Beatles on it.  Football didn't interest me, but the music of the 'fabfour' and other Merseysound stuff did.  i might have had some 'pin up' pictures of women (ie, Dianna Rigg) had i not been fearful of the consequences from my dad..  i suppose sexual repression was quite widespread for my generation.

i've often thought that i am a bit of an oddity - some of the points made in this thread confirm it really.  Oh well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> No, of course I don't disagree. But the debate has gone considerably further than that, and nobody's actually disagreeing with your _ad nauseam_ restating of this fact.


Even that's not so straightforward. Bad sex in an ltr that may be in the process of going wrong - sad, empty sex - can involve less than enthusiastic consent from one or other party. Doesn't necessarily make people cunts of the highest order - just flawed human beings.


----------



## 1%er (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly i'd be interested to find out how many bands' managers are women.


Angie Bowie managed David at some point, but can't think of any other atm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even that's not so straightforward. Bad sex in an ltr that may be in the process of going wrong - sad, empty sex - can involve less than enthusiastic consent from one or other party. Doesn't necessarily make people cunts of the highest order - just flawed human beings.


yeh but that's not saying anything is it because we're all flawed.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

redcogs said:


> As a hetero teenager in 1963/4, the wall above my bed (i shared one room with two brothers) had pictures of the Beatles on it.  Football didn't interest me, but the music of the 'fabfour' and other Merseysound stuff did.  i might have had some 'pin up' pictures of women (ie, Dianna Rigg) had i not been fearful of the consequences from my dad..  i suppose sexual repression was quite widespread for my generation.
> 
> i've often thought that i am a bit of an oddity - some of the points made in this thread confirm it really.  Oh well.


I think I provided my own repression. Or, more likely, that any expression of sexuality might have prompted some prurient and embarrassing conversations from my mother 

So I kept my passions very much to myself, too. I seem to recall having a bit of a thing for Cheryl Ladd, but, lacking a television, there wasn't a huge amount of scope to spot others 

But, actually, in common (I suspect now, but didn't then) with a lot of teenage boys, I found the manifestations and practicalities of emergent sexuality confusing and (ahem ) impenetrable - I always had the sense that it was a kind of game being played to rules everybody but me knew...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 13, 2016)

1%er said:


> Angie Bowie managed David at some point, but can't think of any other atm


Sharon Arden?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think I provided my own repression. Or, more likely, that any expression of sexuality might have prompted some prurient and embarrassing conversations from my mother
> 
> So I kept my passions very much to myself, too. I seem to recall having a bit of a thing for Cheryl Ladd, but, lacking a television, there wasn't a huge amount of scope to spot others
> 
> But, actually, in common (I suspect now, but didn't then) with a lot of teenage boys, I found the manifestations and practicalities of emergent sexuality confusing and (ahem ) impenetrable - I always had the sense that it was a kind of game being played to rules everybody but me knew...


i thought you'd be more a farrah fawcett man


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even that's not so straightforward. Bad sex in an ltr that may be in the process of going wrong - sad, empty sex - can involve less than enthusiastic consent from one or other party. Doesn't necessarily make people cunts of the highest order - just flawed human beings.


Thank you for that - I had an uneasiness about his notion of "enthusiastic" consent, but just couldn't put my finger on what it was about that assumption that sounded a discordant note. But yes, that was it - a binary notion of consent.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought you'd be more a farrah fawcett man


Far too much hair. Also, everyone else seemed to fancy her, and I always was one for the underdog  (only half joking!)


----------



## 1%er (Jan 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Sharon Arden?


Sprang to mind while putting the kettle on 

That's Sharon Osbourne (née Levy) to save people looking it up


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 13, 2016)

My first crush was Lady Di 
(Pre teen though, the musicians I remember fancying as a teen were Patricia Morrison, Miki Berenyi, Lesley Rankine and Lori Barbero)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> My first crush was Lady Di


oh dear


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 13, 2016)

An interesting and provocative thread, nice one Liam.

To me it seems that we are witnessing a Cultural Revolution, akin to that which took place in China during the '60s and '70s.  The new generation violently repudiates the culture of the old, smashing its idols, denouncing its _mores, _forcing its surviving exponents into grotesque rituals of self-criticism and public humiliation. 

Perhaps we should ask who or what is driving and deriving benefit from this revolution?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, when i was younger i was a big sex pistols fan and then got interested in the bands they went on to, which for glen matlock was rich kids, john lydon's pil and then the (to my mind) more interesting journeys of paul cook and steve jones



Why do you think Cook and Jones' subsequent careers were the most interesting?  Many would say that only a fool would think such a thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Why do you think Cook and Jones' subsequent careers were the most interesting?  Many would say that only a fool would think such a thing.


i find the music they went onto in she sham pistols, the professionals, chequered past and (in jones' case) as a solo musician really rather underrated. jones's descent into and recovery from heroin addiction is in itself noteworthy, and i think this is mirrored in his solo albums _mercy_ and _fire and gasoline_


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i find the music they went onto in she sham pistols, the professionals, chequered past and (in jones' case) as a solo musician really rather underrated. jones's descent into and recovery from heroin addiction is in itself noteworthy, and i think this is mirrored in his solo albums _mercy_ and _fire and gasoline_



Oh alright.  His playing on Johnny Thunders' _So Alone _is also formidable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Oh alright.  His playing on Johnny Thunders' _So Alone _is also formidable.


----------



## Looby (Jan 13, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not ready, or just not given the chance?!
> 
> tbh I think the truth is a bit blunter than that - as has been said a few times now, most 16-year-old girls are not in the slightest bit interested in 16-year-old boys. The reverse isn't true, ime.


I wasn't interested in boys my age at all. Past middle school, I can only remember one crush on a school boy and he was from the grammar. 
I wondered if it was because I didn't like the boys at my school. All trainers, curtains and gold earrings but I've always liked older men and that hasn't changed. My husband is only four years older than me and that's pretty much the smallest age gap I've had.


----------



## Mation (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I'm not saying my experience is the same as the groupie/pop-star scenario, my point was that my experience shapes how I react to topics like this.
> 
> You're right about potential for harm - which is why it should definitely be treated as verboten, even though it will probably always happen.
> 
> I do think the question of groupies is fascinating - more so than the adult pop star, for whom the answer is simple. No. Nope. Just, no. Don't. But girls/young women tripping on excitement, adult environment and quite possibly all sorts of drugs, what does one say to/about them? I know just how bloody hard teenage/preteen girls love their idols. Take a bullet for them hard. Spend all day in a dream-relationship with them hard. So if sex was offered some of them would definitely consent (some I'm sure would blanche and reveal themselves to be children). I mean, of course the answer is that you aren't tying to dissuade the girl. That it rests on the adult to, well, not fuck her. Maybe pop stars need moral guards as well as body guards, to protect others from them. The ego/power trip must be enormous (I do not feel sorry for, or excuse any of them - eta: but I think history has shown these particular people to be incapable of evaluating the risk, and therefore maybe they shouldn't be trusted to).


Not just these particular people but I'd bet any group of young adults given that much power and ego stroking. The parts of our brains responsible for control and reasoning don't finish developing till your mid-20s on average. They _really_ shouldn't be trusted to. (Note that this does not account for those adult rock/pop stars who continue to target young fans.)


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I think that there is a male analogue - many adolescent boys would have had posters of particular female stars on their bedroom walls (or, if they were somewhat shyer *cough* just have carried a torch for one). I think there is a difference: it seems that we might well have quite deliberately chosen targets for our youthful obsessions that were even more unattainable than rock stars! I think that's probably true for most girls, too - I don't imagine that a very large proportion of girls with David Cassidy (or Justin Bieber ) posters on their walls would actually wish to end up having sex with them.
> 
> And, by the time boys have reached the same level of emotional maturity as girls (I've seen it suggested that boys might attain the level of emotional maturity girls exhibit at 14-15 by their very late teens or early 20s), they're significantly older, and less prone to having their naivete taken advantage of.
> 
> I can remember, as a fairly young person, seeing footage of girls at Beatles concerts - that classic shot of young teenage girls in Edna Everage glasses tearing at their hair, sobbing, and being carried, limp, from the auditorium - and being quite shocked and utterly perplexed by what was going on. Even as an adult, I find it difficult to relate to the kind of emotional state that was being demonstrated in that footage, but it's undeniable it went on, and still, perhaps to a slightly less intense level, does.


In terms of the analogue, I think there are real differences though.  It's 3 decades since I've been the relevant age and I haven't had kids, so I'm pretty much detached from all this. However it seems there are real differences in the gendered experiences of fandom (either teeny or teenage).  Seems to me, from Elvis through to David Cassidy to Bieber, female fandom has been tightly shaped into a kind of collective yearning by the music press and promoters - something that could be shared in schools as the stereotypical pining, using posters and sharing every bit of information (even if the final bit has changed in an internet age).  For boys, there was certainly lust - and a lust you could share to some extent with other boys - about female stars.  However it just wasn't the same - it was less 'dependent', less of an identity.

I think all of that has a bearing on the discussion here.  Rock/popstars had ready made markets of female fans, ready to pay the sexual price of access - along with a music industry that almost factored groupiedom into the structure of tours and gigs.  However whilst there were no doubt teenage boys who hung around Suzi Quatro's stage door it would have been very unlikely that they would have been admitted, beyond the routine signing of autographs.  In fact, there's a question, _are there_ stories of female stars who have abused underage boys or in any way included them in their 'entourage'?  I would guess there aren't, might be wrong though.  If I'm right about that, it probably says something about the groupiedom focused on male stars.  Well, it says something very obvious, we should see it as deeply rooted in existing gender inequalities.  Might be individual women who had a different experience of it but, for me at least, that's the thing you need to keep in view.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Also the pop music industry is massively male dominated with only a few exceptions (Beyonce, Lady Gaga etc) I think someone uploaded a graphic showing what the reading festival would look like if it only included bands with at least one woman in them, hardly anyone. Could that have something to do with it?



There are many more female artists/singers than you suggest - they just might be less 'festival-oriented' than 'indie' bands consisting mainly of males.  Switch on a commercial 'pop' radio station and I guarantee most of the voices you hear will be female.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jan 13, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The law is absolutely there to deal with "...a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...". The majority of USI (unlawful sexual intercourse) convictions are for such relationships, rather than for more obviously predatory relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the law is, and always has been, unevenly enforced (many people have mentioned Bill Wyman), so the message that the actual statute sends is weak enough that people break it - some unintentionally, some deliberately.



I get your point ...and agree but I was trying to say that this discussion here was not about 16 or 17 yr olds but adults (if that make sense)


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

TopCat said:


> Over 16 and enthusiastic consent is all that counts.



I don't think so.  I'd have big questions about, say, a middle aged man with a 17 year old.  Like, what is it he wants from a relationship that a woman who is his equal in experience does not provide? Because, of the many answers to that question, all of them spell unhealthy relationship to me.

  And the same would apply if the genders were reversed. If a female friend (late thirties - forties)  started seeing a really young man (below, say, 24), I'd have concerns about that.  Not that it's abusive, but that to me, it feels unequal.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

Does it happen to the same extent now? I genuinely don't know. I know that Ian Watkins was able to get several young girls to allow him access to their babies but is that groupie culture still a thing? I dont remember it being when i was at school. People had crushes on these men but as far as i know there weren't hordes of girls being let backstage etc.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

I dont buy those girly magazines either obviously. Has the paedophilia scandal had any effect on the way this is handled in terms of stuff marketed to young girls? I dont have kids and i dont have any desire to look at this sort of stuff but is it still an issue?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I don't think so.  I'd have big questions about, say, a middle aged man with a 17 year old.  Like, what is it he wants from a relationship that a woman who is his equal in experience does not provide? Because, of the many answers to that question, all of them spell unhealthy relationship to me.


As a middle-aged man now (grrrr  40 is the new 30 etc), the idea of seeing someone under 30 feels a bit wrong. The idea of seeing anyone under 20 feels very wrong.

That said, I try not to judge others too much. Sometimes you can see the car crash coming but you just have to let it happen, and sometimes you're wrong about the crash, too.


----------



## keybored (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> 'blowing little nipple kisses' (as she put it)


As her biographer put it*


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I dont buy those girly magazines either obviously. Has the paedophilia scandal had any effect on the way this is handled in terms of stuff marketed to young girls? I dont have kids and i dont have any desire to look at this sort of stuff but is it still an issue?


I really doubt that magazines aimed at younger teens now would be talking about sex and getting drunk the way they did in Mates. They also wouldn't feature girls in suggestive poses with pop stars (I know the models were older than 16 but the readership was definitely younger.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I don't think so.  I'd have big questions about, say, a middle aged man with a 17 year old.  Like, what is it he wants from a relationship that a woman who is his equal in experience does not provide? Because, of the many answers to that question, all of them spell unhealthy relationship to me.


Also other power inbalances, any students I teach will be over 18 but (quite rightly) I'm not allowed to have a sexual relationship with them.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> talking about sex and getting drunk the way they did in Mates.


Jesus, really?


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i find the music they went onto in she sham pistols, the professionals, chequered past and (in jones' case) as a solo musician really rather underrated. jones's descent into and recovery from heroin addiction is in itself noteworthy, and i think this is mirrored in his solo albums _mercy_ and _fire and gasoline_



I find Steve Jones being name-checked positively in a thread such as this both ironic and revolting. There's a reason he walks into the 'Cambridge Rapist Hotel' in the Rock n Roll Swindle. 

"I was only in it for the birds after the show".

That's not irony. That's him speaking as Steve Jones. Abusive, misogynistic...and the rest...little prick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I find Steve Jones being name-checked positively in a thread such as this both ironic and revolting. There's a reason he walks into the 'Cambridge Rapist Hotel' in the Rock n Roll Swindle.
> 
> "I was only in it for the birds after the show".
> 
> That's not irony. That's him speaking as Steve Jones. Abusive, misogynistic...and the rest...little prick.


i am disappointed you have not suggested malcolm maclaren was in some way an abuser being as his shop sold cambridge rapist t-shirts.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> Does it happen to the same extent now? I genuinely don't know. I know that Ian Watkins was able to get several young girls to allow him access to their babies but is that groupie culture still a thing? I dont remember it being when i was at school. People had crushes on these men but as far as i know there weren't hordes of girls being let backstage etc.


I suspect fandom has changed due to 15/20 years of the internet, more interactive more knowing. That may have had some impact on power relationships (I genuinely don't know).  I'd also guess that the Savile revelations and wave of DJ trials has sent a waves of terror through the music industry, quite a few managers, dealers and musicians looking over their shoulders.  I'd also guess that labels and management companies have been panicked into action in  a few cases and even taken on board some lawyerly advice about liability.  Having said all that, along with the BBC and other organisations, there's been a slow shift in the culture anyway from the 70s, even if it has a way to go. [middle aged speculation ends]


----------



## Mation (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I don't think so.  I'd have big questions about, say, a middle aged man with a 17 year old.  Like, what is it he wants from a relationship that a woman who is his equal in experience does not provide? Because, of the many answers to that question, all of them spell unhealthy relationship to me.
> 
> And the same would apply if the genders were reversed. If a female friend (late thirties - forties)  started seeing a really young man (below, say, 24), I'd have concerns about that.  Not that it's abusive, but that to me, it feels unequal.


It would certainly have the potential to be unequal, but not automatically so in a power imbalance sort of way. I would say this, though, given that at 38 I had a relationship of a few months with a 23-year-old, based on lust, some common interests and friendship. It couldn't have lasted because there obviously were differences in stage and experience but when that started to become a problem, we ended it (and are still good friends). I do think it would have had more potential to be concerning if our genders were reversed, just because of the structural inequalities that exist. But I do agree with your general point.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> That's not irony. That's him speaking as Steve Jones. Abusive, misogynistic...and the rest...little prick.



....he has stated he was abused as a child and related that to his later behaviour towards women...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2016)

killer b said:


> it's more to do with what boys are socialised to find attractive, I think. Power & success aren't really involved (in fact are negatives).



Thats shit because im neither powerful nor successful but i still seem to be doing summat wrong


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I find Steve Jones being name-checked positively in a thread such as this both ironic and revolting. There's a reason he walks into the 'Cambridge Rapist Hotel' in the Rock n Roll Swindle.
> 
> "I was only in it for the birds after the show".
> 
> That's not irony. That's him speaking as Steve Jones. Abusive, misogynistic...and the rest...little prick.



Can someone please remind me of a) how old Jones was at the time? and b) how long ago the film was made?


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Can someone please remind me of a) how old Jones was at the time? and b) how long ago the film was made?


25, same age as Bowie, and 1980


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Jesus, really?


Grim isn't it?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> An interesting and provocative thread, nice one Liam.
> 
> To me it seems that we are witnessing a Cultural Revolution, akin to that which took place in China during the '60s and '70s.  The new generation violently repudiates the culture of the old, smashing its idols, denouncing its _mores, _forcing its surviving exponents into grotesque rituals of self-criticism and public humiliation.
> 
> Perhaps we should ask who or what is driving and deriving benefit from this revolution?



Thank you kindly phildwyer. I note even your presence has not brought the usual suspects out in force - yet. One or two have been sniffing around, especially at the start, but all these nice, intelligent people seem to have seen them off (mostly politely).

An interesting observation. I've been troubled for a long time by aspects of how all this has evolved. I often ponder if the establishment is not deliberately driving an overload of outrage etc just so the general public eventually gets so sick of hearing it that the lights that need to be shone in some very dark corners will never get there or be seen because of the floodlights focussed on celebrities, IYKWIM.

Your qustion seems very pertinent.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> 25, same age as Bowie, and 1980



That's handy. How people post/respond to whatever it is he is supposed to have done will be illuminating then.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> ....he has stated he was abused as a child and related that to his later behaviour towards women...


Understandable, but there is a fine and dangerous line between using something like that to explain the behaviour, and using it as a justification. If someone used that line with me, I'd want to know what they had done to change it.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

The difference between boy and girl groupies? It doesn't really work with boys, does it? Well not hetero ones anyway. 

The most basic one would be that boy groupies would have relatively very little to _offer_ sexually to (older) female rock stars, would they? Don't think I've ever heard of a female rocker getting off on spotty nerds coming in their trousers on introduction. Never seen a girl pop star with younger male fans hanging off them.   

Young girls - basically 'have her scrubbed and sent to my tent' - on the other hand  are quite an ego boost/power trip for some and a whole new level of debauchery/power fantasy for those who have grown bored with the thousands of older girls offering themselves up. 

Just a thought.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Understandable, but there is a fine and dangerous line between using something like that to explain the behaviour, and using it as a justification. If someone used that line with me, I'd want to know what they had done to change it.



What did he do?


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i am disappointed you have not suggested malcolm maclaren was in some way an abuser being as his shop sold cambridge rapist t-shirts.



I have good reason for saying what I said and it goes way beyond your pithy little statement here. I've also read Urban's "no lawyers please" thread so have no desire to go beyond what I've said. That Jones himself apparently claims abuse as a reason for his 'behaviour' I also find crass. But typical. Sorry if I've disappointed you about your hero. I'm sure a cup of tea will sort you out. Others might not have that luxury.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> "I was only in it for the birds after the show".



Is that not why lots of young men are traditionally atracted to this as a career?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> What did he do?


Using his own experience as a victim of abuse to explain/justify his behaviour.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I have good reason for saying what I said and it goes way beyond your pithy little statement here. I've also read Urban's "no lawyers please" thread so have no desire to go beyond what I've said. That Jones himself apparently claims abuse as a reason for his 'behaviour' I also find crass. But typical. Sorry if I've disappointed you about your hero. I'm sure a cup of tea will sort you out. Others might not have that luxury.


if you could link to where jones said what you allege, so i can look st it in context, i'd be grateful.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> if you could link to where jones said what you allege, so i can look st it in context, i'd be grateful.


it's in Rock 'n' Roll Swindle.  You know  it, the fictional film which Steve Jones didn't write the script for.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 13, 2016)

Was/would it have been odd a 21 year old girl going out with a 43 year old in the 80s I wonder?
A little odd maybe.
Ouch.
Guilty.

Serious question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> it's in Rock 'n' Roll Swindle.  You know  it, the fictional film which Steve Jones didn't write the script for.


right, the maclaren version


----------



## LiamO (Jan 13, 2016)

yardbird said:


> Was/would it have been odd a 21 year old girl going out with a 43 year old in the 80s I wonder?
> A little odd maybe.
> Ouch.
> Guilty.
> ...



I don't think so at all. Not then. Not now. Consenting adults and all that


----------



## yardbird (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I don't think so at all. Not then. Not now. Consenting adults and all that


It was the age gap thing.
Considered to be wrong by her folks.Seven months with a very pretty young thing - just not young enough to worry me.
I probably wouldn't do it now, even if I were still just 43.


----------



## laptop (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I don't think so at all. Not then. Not now. Consenting adults and all that


S/he wasn't her professor? Few more questions if so. Employer? Fewer more, but some. Neither? No probs.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

I might be projecting... but I've had a lot of conversations with people in the past where we said that we didn't really become the people we recognise as our adult selves until some time in our mid twenties.  Obviously not all young people experience that, but i think it's pretty common.   

I think an age gap of ten years between say,  21 and 31 one is far, far bigger than one of twenty years between 31 and 51.


----------



## felixthecat (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I might be projecting... but I've had a lot of conversations with people in the past where we said that we didn't really become the people we recognise as our adult selves until some time in our mid twenties.  Obviously not all young people experience that, but i think it's pretty common.
> 
> I think an age gap of ten years between say,  21 and 31 one is far, far bigger than one of twenty years between 31 and 51.


I dunno... my son has been with his girlfriend who is 15 years his senior since he was 20 - he's now 26. I love her dearly - she dragged my son kicking and screaming into adulthood - and I think they are superbly suited to each other. Sometimes it just works  eh?


----------



## yardbird (Jan 13, 2016)

laptop said:


> S/he wasn't her professor? Few more questions if so. Employer? Fewer more, but some. Neither? No probs.


I was "interesting" and she was as bright as a spark, plus I could get tickets for anything.


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I might be projecting... but I've had a lot of conversations with people in the past where we said that we didn't really become the people we recognise as our adult selves until some time in our mid twenties.  Obviously not all young people experience that, but i think it's pretty common.
> 
> I think an age gap of ten years between say,  21 and 31 one is far, far bigger than one of twenty years between 31 and 51.


early 30s, in some cases.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 13, 2016)

felixthecat said:


> I dunno... my son has been with his girlfriend who is 15 years his senior since he was 20 - he's now 26. I love her dearly - she dragged my son kicking and screaming into adulthood - and I think they are superbly suited to each other. Sometimes it just works  eh?


Yeah - I dunno. Obviously it does.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 13, 2016)

belboid said:


> 25, same age as Bowie, and 1980



Wrong. It was made in 1978, when he was 22.


----------



## belboid (Jan 13, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Wrong. It was made in 1978, when he was 22.


Yes, else's in 80 but filmed early 78, so you would be right. But also irrelevant as he's playing a role.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I might be projecting... but I've had a lot of conversations with people in the past where we said that we didn't really become the people we recognise as our adult selves until some time in our mid twenties.  Obviously not all young people experience that, but i think it's pretty common. .


Yeah that's true for me. Around 27 I would say.

Doesn't mean you can't find a good relationship before that, though, clearly.


----------



## tonysingh (Jan 13, 2016)

This age gap thing is interesting, though not the topic of the thread originally, so forgive me this further derailment.

I used to be a security officer, and one of the places I worked at was a hostel, mostly the residents were young people, aged 16 to about 21ish. We were lone workers, handling things once the staff had fucked off. My fellow guards, during my time there, were alright with the exception of CuntyBollocks. Now he was a man in his mid 40s and he tried to be matey with the residents, which is not on BUT over the course of a few weeks I started having huge concerns over his conduct with several residents in particular.

He'd allow them in our office, a huge no no. He'd let these ones drink alcohol there, smoke there whilst not letting others have the same freedom. He would hug 2 of the young female residents (16 n 17 years old) close etc. I tried talking to him, the client, our employer, all to no avail. 

This all came to a head one weekend. The door was propped open, allowing anyone access. I found CuntyBollocks in the office with the female residents next to him on a sofa, reading through the log book. There was also a male resident passed out drunk. I kicked them out, shouted at CuntyBollocks and that was that....until the next day. I came on duty, couldn't find him anywhere. I got worried, went looking and found him fucking a 16 year old female resident in a side room! This was a really vulnerable girl as well, very easy to take advantage of. I went mental, told him not to come back and if he did, I'd have him nicked. 

Now I know it wasn't statutory rape or paedophilia as such but a 45ish year old, in a position of trust, smashing a vulnerable 16 year olds back doors in? Nah, borderline/noncery for me. 


As an aside, I was pulled in by the security company and told she was legal and CuntyBollocks had only overstepped his duties and wouldn't face any disciplinary procedures. I however, thanks to bollocking him and insisting he be replaced HAD gone too far and would be getting a written warning. I told them to stick their job up their fucking arse,walked out and pissed off to America.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I might be projecting... but I've had a lot of conversations with people in the past where we said that we didn't really become the people we recognise as our adult selves until some time in our mid twenties.  Obviously not all young people experience that, but i think it's pretty common.
> 
> I think an age gap of ten years between say,  21 and 31 one is far, far bigger than one of twenty years between 31 and 51.



Mid 20s/early 30s... Probably 29/30 for me. iirc this has been explored by SCIENCE a bit, but I can't think of how to google it.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

Men grow up at 43 - 11 years later than women


----------



## 1927 (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I'm sorry but this is really beginning to piss me off (not picking on you especially - it's been everywhere). As far as I can tell, Lori Maddox slept with Bowie willingly. She gave consent. Whether a 13/14/15 year old is capable of giving informed consent is a separate discussion and one that it's worth having.
> 
> However, putting him (and pretty much every single male pop star in the 60s and 70s - I challenge you to find one who didn't sleep with an underage girl) into the same bad box as a paedophile who raped sleeping children, or a man who got his cab to turn around to fuck an unconscious woman (Evans) or a man who raped babies (Watkins) is really not at all helpful. It closes discussion and debate down.


So you are basically accepting that all pop stars are paedophiles! And victim blaming! And I'm the one that gets shafted usually on these threads! Ffs.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

1927 said:


> So you are basically accepting that all pop stars are paedophiles! And victim blaming! And I'm the one that gets shafted usually on these threads! Ffs.


Nope. I've read that four times and still can't figure out how you came to those conclusions. Sorry, conclusions!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Men grow up at 43 - 11 years later than women


tbh the research appears less than rigorous


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh the research appears less than rigorous


Quel surprise


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Quel surprise


not told who actually conducted the survey or survey size. thought might reference an academic article: but no. nor does it refer to any existing research which supports its findings


----------



## campanula (Jan 13, 2016)

These articles which confidently claim milestones occur at certain 'ages' are basically rubbish though - little media puffs which are, ultimately meaningless. It could certainly be argued that both men and women are 'growing up' (whatever that means) later because many of them are forced to remain in the parental home in a state of arrested development...but this is a specific situation, happening at a particular time. Has no real usefulness in determining maturity though.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

I haven't even read the article. Just the title's completely stupid


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

perhaps we don't really achieve adulthood until the deaths of our parents.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we don't really achieve adulthood until the deaths of our parents.


My dad's fucked then. He was 78 when his mum died


----------



## smokedout (Jan 13, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I think all of that has a bearing on the discussion here.  Rock/popstars had ready made markets of female fans, ready to pay the sexual price of access - along with a music industry that almost factored groupiedom into the structure of tours and gigs.  However whilst there were no doubt teenage boys who hung around Suzi Quatro's stage door it would have been very unlikely that they would have been admitted, beyond the routine signing of autographs.  In fact, there's a question, _are there_ stories of female stars who have abused underage boys or in any way included them in their 'entourage'?  I would guess there aren't, might be wrong though.



Sadly female stars at the time were also likely to becomes victims of abuse: The Runaways' Jackie Fuchs Speaks Out About Rape


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2016)

trashpony said:


> My dad's fucked then. He was 78 when his mum died


prince charles will never become an adult


----------



## Wilf (Jan 13, 2016)

LiamO said:


> The difference between boy and girl groupies? It doesn't really work with boys, does it? Well not hetero ones anyway.
> 
> The most basic one would be that boy groupies would have relatively very little to _offer_ sexually to (older) female rock stars, would they? Don't think I've ever heard of a female rocker getting off on spotty nerds coming in their trousers on introduction. Never seen a girl pop star with younger male fans hanging off them.
> 
> ...


You might be right in emphasising the physical differences of adolescent boys and girls, to some extent.  Yes, certainly an older female rock star might not get much of a 'performance' out of a 14 year old boy, but I don't think that's the issue.  The reasons you don't see female popstars with younger males hanging off them are cultural, it would look 'odd', confusing, weird, simply out of place.  But whilst I'm sure male stars are a bit more wary about public appearances with adolescent girls nowadays, the idea of groupiedom feeds of something in our culture.  Something rather nasty.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2016)

Apparently he was accused of rape in 1987, but not charged. 
The Complicated Sexual History of David Bowie

I have no memory of this being reported, but the story doesn't appear to have been repressed. FWIW I'm not introducing this as some killer piece of evidence, it's a good idea to believe women but that doesn't mean specific cases are true.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Apparently he was accused of rape in 1987, but not charged.
> The Complicated Sexual History of David Bowie
> 
> I have no memory of this being reported, but the story doesn't appear to have been repressed. FWIW I'm not introducing this as some killer piece of evidence, it's a good idea to believe women but that doesn't mean specific cases are true.



I'm finding all this journo/blogger shit pretty hard to take tbh, I don't disagree with the whole "Despite all of these great achievements, his past is not spotless, and for the sake of every victim of sexual violence, it doesn’t deserve to be remembered as such." thing.  I don't like heroes, and I don't care if they get taken down.

But, there are people still living who did far worse.  Huge household names in fact with far more evidence and testimony to go on then Bowie - and they wouldnt dare be printing this shit if he wasn't dead.  People who the commentariat have probably still got posters of on their fucking walls and are ignoring the reams of testimony against them.  But they haven't got the fucking guts to go after them.  Only when they are dead, when theres no chance of any comeback, when libels off the tables, and then the knives come out with a standard of evidence that wouldn't get past the first hurdle if someone was still alive.  Bill Wyman is walking around untroubled, as are many others.  Perhaps its only when they are dead too that the press will go omg he was a child abuser, who knew?  Bunch of fucking cunts.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> prince charles will never become an adult


So long as he never becomes king.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

spanglechick said:


> I'd have big questions about, say, a middle aged man with a 17 year old.  Like, what is it he wants from a relationship that a woman who is his equal in experience does not provide? Because, of the many answers to that question, all of them spell unhealthy relationship to me.





redsquirrel said:


> Also other power imbalances, any students I teach will be over 18 but (quite rightly) I'm not allowed to have a sexual relationship with them.



ok.. except for. Isn't this something that has always gone on, since ever? But just keeping it to our time and place:

Teenaged girls tend to fancy men older than them, whether famous or not. Far as I know/ remember most teenaged girls' first crush will be on someone significantly older than themselves, whether a star or someone in their real world.

Meanwhile.. the word "teen" has held the number one or two spot for most popular search term on the internet's biggest porn site for .. since records began.


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps we don't really achieve adulthood until the deaths of our parents.



...or have kids...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 14, 2016)

Oops, wrong thread


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2016)

and the wrong thread


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 14, 2016)




----------



## treelover (Jan 14, 2016)

During the RTS'/Rave period, there were plenty of middle aged guys(40 plus) with young girls, 17/18, etc, there was one guy here 42 at the time going out with a 17 yr old, her parents seemed to approve, and he was with her awhile, though when he split up with her, he said he "still occasionally shagged her" so no questions by then it was just physical. This relationship was never commented on by the RTS lot, the guy still acted like this across Europe during the big A/C protests, he wasn't alone, I recall plenty of predatory males in that culture.


----------



## aylee (Jan 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Umm ... if a victim does not agree to 'it', and it's penetrative, it's rape whether the victim is 14, 40 or 82



Of course it is.  I was responding to the debate earlier in the thread about whether a situation where a 13-16 year old agrees to have penetrative sex is treated as rape in law.  It isn't.


----------



## LDC (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> During the RTS'/Rave period, there were plenty of middle aged guys(40 plus) with young girls, 17/18, etc, there was one guy here 42 at the time going out with a 17 yr old, her parents seemed to approve, and he was with her awhile, though when he split up with her, he said he "still occasionally shagged her" so no questions by then it was just physical. This relationship was never commented on by the RTS lot, the guy still acted like this across Europe during the big A/C protests, he wasn't alone, I recall plenty of predatory males in that culture.



Do you mean in London Reclaim the Streets (RTS) in the '90s? If so I'd be interested to know who you mean. Someone in the group or someone in the wider scene - which was massive? I was around then and don't recall any such relationship, and saying there were 'plenty' of them is quite a claim. PM would be better I expect!


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

treelover said:


> During the RTS'/Rave period, there were plenty of middle aged guys(40 plus) with young girls, 17/18, etc, there was one guy here 42 at the time going out with a 17 yr old, her parents seemed to approve, and he was with her awhile, though when he split up with her, he said he "still occasionally shagged her" so no questions by then it was just physical. This relationship was never commented on by the RTS lot, the guy still acted like this across Europe during the big A/C protests, he wasn't alone, I recall plenty of predatory males in that culture.



So.. she liked him, enough to keep meeting him after they split up, even her parents apparently liked him, but you feel free to pass judgement on the thing and cast her as a victim of a 'predatory male' ?
Fair enough but.. I was one of those very young girls around the protest party scene at that time and my boyfriend whilst not quite in his 40s was still 'much too old for me': I now know that his friends had a serious go at him when we first got together, were very disapproving, but they calmed down after a couple of years as we all got to know eachother.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 14, 2016)

aylee said:


> Of course it is.  I was responding to the debate earlier in the thread about whether a situation where a 13-16 year old agrees to have penetrative sex is treated as rape in law.  It isn't.


Oh sorry! Misunderstood. Fast-moving thread


----------



## tonysingh (Jan 14, 2016)

What's the London RTS?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2016)

tonysingh said:


> What's the London RTS?


Reclaim The Streets


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

Now the subject has been broached, I think it's well worth discussing how decrepit old lefty 'Gurus' incredibly seemed to punch well above their weight in the sexual stakes with young female activists.

I'm sure they would argue the girls were bowled over by their massive intellects - I always felt they were sordid old cunts preying on impressionable young women, myself.

I'm sure the truth falls somewhere between the two. I'd be intereseted in people sharing their experiences and their views (both then and now) of this phenomenon.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Now the subject has been broached, I think it's well worth discussing how decrepit old lefty 'Gurus' incredibly seemed to punch well above their weight in the sexual stakes with young female activists.
> 
> I'm sure they would argue the girls were bowled over by their massive intellects - I always felt they were sordid old cunts preying on impressionable young women, myself.
> 
> I'm sure the truth falls somewhere between the two. I'd be intereseted in people sharing their experiences and their views (both then and now) of this phenomenon.



 Definitely somewhere in between those two.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

I remember back about 1988, one Saturday night I got off with a gorgeous, young, red-headed, Workers Power activist. Apart from being physicaly stunning, she was a real nice, genuine person. 

In the post-coital glow she was telling me of her sexual journey since meeting WP as a wide-eyed 16/17-year old schoolgirl. It did not make for particaularly pleasant listening and I toold her straight up that some of them were well taking the piss with their carry-on. They'd managed to present their indulging in ther lechery as her somehow shaking off the shackles of her capitalist indoctrination and reclaiming her sexuality for herself.

I'm sure shagging a beautiful woman was a sacrifice they had to steal themselves for. Dirty old bastards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2016)

She was telling you about the other people she'd slept with just after having sex with you? 

I can see how that might not be very pleasant to listen to.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

If TopCat is about, maybe he could contribute his recollections. One mutual female acquaintance had some interesting tales to tell of her experiences with a couple of Trot groups before she got involved with Class War/ Red Action. But it's probably too long ago for me to remember much detail.

Don't get me wrong. I was always fairly led by my cock and was as lecherous as the next. The difference I suppose was I was a youngster myself and never in a position of power.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> It did not make for particaularly pleasant listening and *I told her straight up* that some of them were well taking the piss with their carry-on. They'd managed to present their indulging in their lechery as her somehow shaking off the shackles of her capitalist indoctrination and reclaiming her sexuality for herself.
> I'm sure shagging a beautiful woman was a sacrifice they had to steal themselves for. Dirty old bastards.



Did she agree with you though? Or did you just tell her.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She was telling you about the other people she'd slept with just after having sex with you?
> 
> I can see how that might not be very pleasant to listen to.



Let me clarify. Ours was a casual coupling. We just found ourselves together after a night's drinking after a long day of political activity. We were both a bit pissed/stoned and both horny. She was 19/20. I was 24/25. It was perfectly normal for two consenting young political activists to have a fuck if they both felt like one. 

But what she described, the way that senior activists had basically passed her around amongst themselves, made my skin crawl. It would never have happened in Red Action. I'm not saying their wasn't loads of (politically incestuous) shagging going on but that kind of bolloxology would have been sussed and people left in no uncertainty about what was and wasn't acceptable.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Did she agree with you though? Or did you just tell her.



AFAIR she did in the end.

She was a convent-educated catholic girl from a small town in Essex (I think) who had never had a shag before she met them. She was quite open that she was looking for personal/sexual liberation so she was ceratinly a willing participant, but in hindsight she was deffo a bit iffy about much of went on. I suppose she was a bit torn. On one hand she was grateful that being around them had helped her cast off the inhibitions and guilt of her upbringing - but she was certainly questioning some of what had occurred by then. That's how the conversation started as I recall.

She was commenting on the fact that the girls in and around Red Action didn't get or take any shit.

e2a... I wasn't up on my moral high horse or denouncing them over it - I was mostly taking the piss out of the fact that they'd have no chance of getting into her knickers if they hadn't blinded her with Marxist theory beforehand.  We were laughing about it - we were stoned afterall - then it all got a bit serious and sad.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> But what she described, the way that senior activists had basically *passed her around amongst themselves*, made my skin crawl.


Wow. She was 'passed around' ?  Is that how she felt about it though? Real question, did she talk about it in those sort of terms?
If so that's awful. If not you may be totally projecting your stuff onto her. I haven't a clue either way obviously but she sounds like a young woman who actually liked having sex, and you just seem to be saying that you have a big problem with relationships where there's a big age difference. That's not something I agree with. 

EDIT: ok i typed that before you posted the bit above


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

btw bimble I added to that post after you'd 'like' it. Just letting you know.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 14, 2016)

I think, LiamO, that you're making an unfair presumption that the only thing young women should be attracted to is youthful good looks. Actually, my own experience as a young woman, was (is? ) that charisma, intelligence, and a certain je ne sais quoi that people who are confident and active in left wing politics seem to have (twinkle in the eye, gift of the gab), are far more attractive than pretty young men. 'There's no accounting for taste' is a cliché for a reason. I really think there's a big gulf between what men think women find attractive and what women actually find attractive.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

ok thanks .


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> I think, LiamO, that you're making an unfair presumption that the only thing young women should be attracted to is youthful good looks. Actually, my own experience as a young woman, was (is? ) that charisma, intelligence, and a certain je ne sais quoi that people who are confident and active in left wing politics seem to have (twinkle in the eye, gift of the gab), are far more attractive than pretty young men. 'There's no accounting for taste' is a cliché for a reason. I really think there's a big gulf between what men think women find attractive and what women actually find attractive.



Definitely. At that age, what I wanted was men who were immensely wise and learned and spiritual and stuff.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 14, 2016)

Ok I missed your long post while I was making mine. I do also appreciate that sexual exploitation/abuse has and does happen in leftwing political organisations. I can see how. It doesn't change what i said about what young women may be attracted to - obviously the shame there is all on the men taking advantage.

Eta: I'm not going to post any more because I'm rotten drunk and I really respect this thread


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. She was 'passed around' ?  Is that how she felt about it though? Real question, did she talk about it in those sort of terms?
> If so that's awful. If not you may be totally projecting your stuff onto her. I haven't a clue either way obviously but she sounds like a young woman who actually liked having sex, and you just seem to be saying that you have a big problem with relationships where there's a big age difference. That's not something I agree with.
> 
> EDIT: ok i typed that before you posted the bit above



You give good questions Bimble.

I think 'passed on' would be a fairer description.

No. I don't have any problem with big age differences. at all. They were very common on the left and I know some great couples where one was considerably older than the other - and both ways. Two of the best activists and most decent people I ever met were a WP couple in their mid 30's. As is my wont I blurted out my feelings about this to them over a pint and we had a full and frank discussion about it. They too were a bit conflicted about it (her rights as a young woman to shag whoever she wanted Vs they both felt it was a bit seedy.

I'm sure there was a fair bit of 'up yours mummy/daddy/ the catholic church' in her actions too. In some ways she was 'using' them too.

I think it's more a question of relative power relations too. And I noted it was always the intellectual glitterati, rather than the foot soldiers, who got the top totty (The RCP were desperate for this as I recall).


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Ok I missed your long post while I was making mine. I do also appreciate that sexual exploitation/abuse has and does happen in leftwing political organisations. I can see how. It doesn't change what i said about what young women may be attracted to - obviously the shame there is all on the men taking advantage.
> 
> Eta: I'm not going to post any more because I'm rotten drunk and I really respect this thread



Enjoy your drink and come back tomorrow then. I'll look forward to your contributions


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She was telling you about the other people she'd slept with just after having sex with you?
> 
> I can see how that might not be very pleasant to listen to.


Especially if she was giving marks out of 10.


----------



## bimble (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I think it's more a question of relative power relations too. And I noted it was always the intellectual glitterati, rather than the foot soldiers, who got the top totty (The RCP were desperate for this as I recall).


Yep, I think that's an important part of this .. it's not just any old geezer is it, it's the really sparkly ones. Also with pop stars and writers and so on. Don't think it's unique to 'the left' , maybe more obvious there because more sexually free.
My views are probably a bit rosy because the (much) older men I got together with back when I was very young are both still good friends, so maybe I chose well or something.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Let me clarify. Ours was a casual coupling. We just found ourselves together after a night's drinking after a long day of political activity. We were both a bit pissed/stoned and both horny. She was 19/20. I was 24/25. It was perfectly normal for two consenting young political activists to have a fuck if they both felt like one.
> 
> But what she described, the way that senior activists had basically passed her around amongst themselves, made my skin crawl. It would never have happened in Red Action. I'm not saying their wasn't loads of (politically incestuous) shagging going on but that kind of bolloxology would have been sussed and people left in no uncertainty about what was and wasn't acceptable.


I think the problem with the left is that 'casting of the shackles of bourgeois morality' or whatever is perfectly fine, but it can used as a cover for explorative behavior. And it can be hard to tell the difference. Hell it's not going to be easy to agree where the boundary is. The individuals involved certainty won't see themselves as exploiting anyone. Mind you does anyone ever see themselves like that? I also think the left can attract some slightly odd people who can end up in what can look to others like odd relationships.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> My views are probably a bit rosy because the (much) older men I got together with back when I was very young are both still good friends, so maybe I chose well or something.


Ok I know I said I wasn't going to post 

I nearly said something similar about my own past yesterday, but then I thought that implies that someone who ended up in an abusive relationship chose badly. I think we have to accept that we were lucky and that anyone abused/assaulted was unlucky.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 14, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I think the problem with the left is that 'casting of the shackles of bourgeois morality' or whatever is perfectly fine, but it can used as a cover for explorative behavior. And it can be hard to tell the difference. Hell it's not going to be easy to agree where the boundary is. The individuals involved certainty won't see themselves as exploiting anyone. Mind you does anyone ever see themselves like that? I also think the left can attract some slightly odd people who can end up in what can look to others like odd relationships.




'casting of the shackles of bourgeois morality'... yep that's the phrase I was struggling for.

I take it 'exploitive' was the one you meant? 

Yeah. This mob probably carried a well-thumbed copy of 'The Love of Worker Bees' in their arse pocket... right beside the condoms!


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2016)

LiamO said:


> I take it 'exploitive' was the one you meant?


I could swear I corrected that before posting !


----------



## Mation (Jan 15, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Don't get me wrong. I was always fairly led by my cock and was as lecherous as the next. The difference I suppose was I was a youngster myself and never in a position of power.


You may not have thought you were in a position of power, but it's relative. Being someone a bit older and more experienced and apparently knowledgeable and respected and/or liked within an organisation/political circle who is doing Important Things to Change the World can seem like power to someone younger and less experienced and more peripheral, regardless of 'official' status. None of which is to have a go at you at all - I don't know what your situation was or how you acted; it needn't have been abusively. 

I think this is an interesting article: David Bowie, rock star groupies and the sexually adventurous ’70s: “Labeling us as victims in retrospect is not a very conscious thing to do”

(Not just in defense of Bowie, honest!) It sort of says that they _were_ different times, but not in a way that says people thought differently about abusive situations then, but more that there was a then still recent emphasis on women (and young women) being able to go out and get the sex they wanted. No doubt some of this was encouraged by lecherous old t/codgers as expedient, but it will have made _some_ young women feel, then and later, that they were active and enthusiastic participants. And in case it's not clear, none of that excuses taking advantage of young people caught up in the scene who didn't feel that way - it should never be expected that they should.

Does that make any sense?!


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2016)

treelover said:


> During the RTS'/Rave period, there were plenty of middle aged guys(40 plus) with young girls, 17/18, etc, there was one guy here 42 at the time going out with a 17 yr old, her parents seemed to approve, and he was with her awhile, though when he split up with her, he said he "still occasionally shagged her"



I've thought hard and that story rings no bells. I doubt I am yet too senile to remember.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

Mation said:


> You may not have thought you were in a position of power, but it's relative. Being someone a bit older and more experienced and apparently knowledgeable and respected and/or liked within an organisation/political circle who is doing Important Things to Change the World can seem like power to someone younger and less experienced and more peripheral, regardless of 'official' status. None of which is to have a go at you at all - I don't know what your situation was or how you acted; it needn't have been abusively.
> 
> Does that make any sense?!



Yes, it makes sense.


I wasn't old. I wasn't in any position of power.

Having said that I was not averse to shagging any middle-class female activist who basically targeted me cos they caught the whiff of (metaphorical) cordite when around Red Action. There were not that many fellas around who were not either in steady relationships or indeed could be arsed chasing casual sex. It was 'dangerous' for them but _very_ safe. A bit of genuine rough but with added politics that made it a much 'safer' dalliance. IYKWIM. Plus I suppose I was often assigned 'liaison/public relations duty' with other left groups (lots of RA/AFA people had a mutual mistrust thing going on with the orthodox left) so I did know and speak to lots of political activists.

Same as a black mate of mine, Pete, who basically shagged his was through both Hackney branches of the SWP. He got to shag 'posh birds' ("It's like a Xmas party evry night geez") and they got to shag a hunky, young, black, Cockney geezer/wide-boy (kind of like shagging me, only with added black... and East-end boy... so many boxes ticked in one shag), so it cut both ways.

Not that I was by any stretch a great shag in my youth. I recall one older activist's report back to her mes after our brief dalliance... "Well, I can certainly say he was very... erm... energetic" was her considered opinion.


----------



## Looby (Jan 15, 2016)

Rebelda said:


> Ok I know I said I wasn't going to post
> 
> I nearly said something similar about my own past yesterday, but then I thought that implies that someone who ended up in an abusive relationship chose badly. I think we have to accept that we were lucky and that anyone abused/assaulted was unlucky.


Yeah, I feel the same. Despite being young and quite messed up I don't necessarily think  I was in an abusive situation. The guy I was with was genuinely lovely to me and actually helped me through a lot of this shit I was going through. I can't imagine someone of my own age being able to support me in the same way. I was lucky really, many of my later boyfriends were fucking rotters! 

Saying all that, I know what I got from the relationship but I do now wonder what his motivations were. That does make me feel a bit weird and conflicted now. Does that make sense?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2016)

Looby said:


> Yeah, I feel the same. Despite being young and quite messed up I don't necessarily think  I was in an abusive situation. The guy I was with was genuinely lovely to me and actually helped me through a lot of this shit I was going through. I can't imagine someone of my own age being able to support me in the same way. I was lucky really, many of my later boyfriends were fucking rotters!


That's another good perspective, I think. Clearly I don't know your circumstances, but you said that he was lovely to you. Maybe his motivations were no more complicated than that you were lovely to him? I think sometimes we overthink the idea of motivation in relationships - surely the motivation is most often simply that you're going with what is in front of you?


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

Looby said:


> Saying all that, I know what I got from the relationship but I do now wonder what his motivations were. That does make me feel a bit weird and conflicted now. Does that make sense?



Maybe he just felt lucky to be with a young woman who could see past age/looks and was happy she had chosen him to guide her through life's choppy waters rather than some belligerent oaf her own age? (Like me )

Maybe it's not so helpful to be projecting today's mores back on those days ... which is kind of where this thread started really.


----------



## Mation (Jan 15, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Yes, it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I wasn't old. I wasn't in any position of power.
> ...


Like I said, I wasn't suggesting my comments necessarily applied to you, or that you have anything to defend.  Just that feeling powerful and being perceived as such don't necessarily match up.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

So it's ok to take advantage of impressionable women as long as they're middle class then liam?


----------



## Mation (Jan 15, 2016)

Looby said:


> Yeah, I feel the same. Despite being young and quite messed up I don't necessarily think  I was in an abusive situation. The guy I was with was genuinely lovely to me and actually helped me through a lot of this shit I was going through. I can't imagine someone of my own age being able to support me in the same way. I was lucky really, many of my later boyfriends were fucking rotters!
> 
> Saying all that, I know what I got from the relationship but I do now wonder what his motivations were. That does make me feel a bit weird and conflicted now. Does that make sense?


Perfect sense. It's the same for me.


----------



## campanula (Jan 15, 2016)

I am not inclined to search for excuses for my motivations but I would say my miserable sexual experiences were such a dead loss that I fell into a much darker druggy culture with a fervent belief that getting wasted was a far more fulfilling and reliable emotional exploration than drunken sex with older men who, far from providing the security I craved, offered nothing. And apparently wanted nothing from me except my compliant young flesh. Even now, at 60, physical intimacy is a difficult and fraught mode of expression for me...and has been my whole life.


----------



## tendril (Jan 15, 2016)

I haven't read this thread for a few pages, and I know we aren't discussing marriage but I have just discovered that the legal minimum age for marriage in Massachusetts (with parental consent) for girls is 13. And California has no minimum age (with parental or judicial consent). I kid you not:


Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> So it's ok to take advantage of impressionable women as long as they're middle class then liam?



just as well I never said that then, eh?

By the way, you should watch your back. I see the little rat who skulked off earlier, after stinking up the place and making repeated attempts to rustle up a posse has just liked your post. He will want you in his gang now. Once you are in, there's no way out...


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

tendril said:


> I haven't read this thread for a few pages, and I know we aren't discussing marriage but I have just discovered that the legal minimum age for marriage in Massachusetts (with parental consent) for girls is 13. And California has no minimum age (with parental or judicial consent). I kid you not:
> 
> 
> Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's grim.


----------



## killer b (Jan 15, 2016)

LiamO said:


> By the way, you should watch your back. I see the little rat who skulked off earlier, after stinking up the place and making repeated attempts to rustle up a posse has just liked your post. He will want you in his gang now. Once you are in, there's no way out...


I'm not much into gangs tbh.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

campanula said:


> I am not inclined to search for excuses for my motivations but I would say my miserable sexual experiences were such a dead loss that I fell into a much darker druggy culture with a fervent belief that getting wasted was a far more fulfilling and reliable emotional exploration than drunken sex with older men who, far from providing the security I craved, offered nothing. And apparently wanted nothing from me except my compliant young flesh. Even now, at 60, physical intimacy is a difficult and fraught mode of expression for me...and has been my whole life.



Looking back I have come to the conclusion that casual, drink or drug-feulled sex is basically a glorified wank. Just enough to take the edge off (and I and many around me certainly had lots of edges) but never truly fulfilling. Basically I would have shied away from any real amotional attachment in those days. In any case it was kind of frowned upon as somehow 'bourgeois'. 

I havent had sex with anyone but my wife for 20 years and, much to my amazement, I've never had better sex. Maybe we should move this whole conversation to 'nobbing and sobbing'. It's a really worthwhile conversation and it may prove useful to both those particpating and those currently lurking, but it could all blow up nasty on here at any stage. Obviously that attack would be on me rather than you, bimble, looby, mation, rebelda, lbj etc.

Ironically enough N&S would supply a 'safer place' for an invective-free conversation where everyone could feel free to conribute freely.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> I'm not much into gangs tbh.





Have another read of what I wrote. I'll be happy to clarify anything you genuinely find offensive tomorrow.  But only if you are really interested in that clarification. If you are looking for a row, you can kiss the Castlebar side of my hairy hole.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2016)

Mation said:


> I think this is an interesting article: David Bowie, rock star groupies and the sexually adventurous ’70s: “Labeling us as victims in retrospect is not a very conscious thing to do”



Really good article that I think. Puts the 70s into a different context - it wasn't just the bad old time of the Carry on films & Saville, was also a really important moment for the "sex positive' bit of feminism. Reminds me that this was a generation of young women whose parents were from the 50's: The whole idea of women actually wanting to have sex (being active agents in the whole thing not passive objects of men's advances) was kind of revolutionary. I do wonder sometimes how much progress has really been made since then. 
This is not to excuse anyone taking advantage of anyone else/ coercing them ever etc etc.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Really good article that I think. Puts the 70s into a different context - it wasn't just the bad old time of the Carry on films & Saville, was also a really important moment for the "sex positive' bit of feminism. Reminds me that this was a generation of young women whose parents were from the 50's: The whole idea of women actually wanting to have sex (being active agents in the whole thing not passive objects of men's advances) was kind of revolutionary. I do wonder sometimes how much progress has really been made since then.
> This is not to excuse anyone taking advantage of anyone else/ coercing them ever etc etc.



I don't think a lot of young people realise just how repressive society was when it came to sexuality.  Even when I was growing up in the 80s, and from a male perspective, sex outside of marriage or cohabitation was still frowned on by many, gender and sexuality was ruthlessly policed - the worst thing you could be at my school if you were a boy was 'a poof', even long hair was a big deal, porn barely existed until videos came along and a flash of female nudity in a Hollywood movie was enough to sell a film - most of me and my friends saw our first female nipple in films like Trading Places, or in a manky old copy of Razzle we found in a bush.  In this context sex was a way to rebel, and losing your virginity as young as possible was a way to gain social standing.  Whilst I can't speak for women, certainly a female friend of mine who shagged people in bands a lot older than her appeared to be doing this both as a form of rebellion, and enjoyment, even if like many other vices, it could be a bit hollow and sordid.

Of course one of the upshots of sexual repression and resistance to it was that this often manifested in ways that seems very unpleasant by contemporary standards, the aforementioned Trading Places is horrifyingly misogynist, the kind of porn that got passed around after the advent of video - pretty much every boy in my school probably watched some of Animal Farm (don't google it you guessed right) - was  worse than much of the readily available porn teenage boys watch now, and a lot of the music, both mainstream and alternative, was sexist crap.  I guess this is what happens when a sexual revolution happens within patriarchy, the gains made in the 60s, 70s and 80s did not overthrow male dominance, what we were actually seeing was a shift in patriarchy from the denial of female sexuality to the exploitation and commodification of female sexuality.  Within the space opened up by that change empowerment could be found, but it also masked a fuck of a lot of abuse.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 16, 2016)

LiamO said:


> Jeffries asks _'At what point do we as a society go 'But they were good'... but like... what I'm trying to say is...  "just how talented do you have to be to fuck a kid"?'_
> 
> 
> I posted the clip above on the David Bowie RIP thread. Unsurprisingly it got an instant reaction from those who worship Bowie's undoubted musical talent, ability, legacy or indeed genius.
> ...




Anecdotal evidence is not countenanced in a court of law, I wonder why that is?


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2016)

Its like 40 pages of discussion hasn't just happened.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato is always anachronistic to the point of irrelevance.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 16, 2016)

killer b said:


> Its like 40 pages of discussion hasn't just happened.



Sorry, but life is too short to plough through forty pages. I responded to one post, a post which stated the the 'evidence' was anecdotal. I do find it curious though, given the rising tendency for litigation, that those girls supposedly raped by Jimmy Page et al, have a. not made a complaint to the police, and b. no civil litigation has been launched.

I am not saying that under-age sex didn't take place, what I am saying is that there has been a stunning lack of allegations from the victims.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2016)

apart from all those interviews they've given, which have been backed up by contemporaries time and time again.


----------



## bimble (Jan 16, 2016)

smokedout said:


> a manky old copy of Razzle we found in a bush.



I think we must have gone to the same school.

Really good post, acknowledging how people's motivations on both sides of any gender / age divide are very rarely simple to define and lock down into a choice of good / bad when you're talking about consensual sex.



smokedout said:


> Whilst I can't speak for women, certainly a female friend of mine who shagged people in bands a lot older than her appeared to be doing this both as a form of rebellion, and enjoyment, even if like many other vices, it could be a bit hollow and sordid.


I can't speak for 'women' either but yes.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think we must have gone to the same school.
> 
> Really good post, acknowledging how people's motivations on both sides of any gender / age divide are very rarely simple to define and lock down into a choice of good / bad when you're talking about consensual sex.



thanks.  perhaps another dynamic worth mentioning, because it applies to Bowie, is that whilst sleeping around was transgressive, it was also a way of adhering to traditional masculinity - ie not being 'a puff'.  Bowie, Bolan and some of their male fans may have been 'gender warriors', but they were also showing, with a nod and a wink, that really they were just good blokes in it for a shag.  I relate to that, I (cringes) was into glam rock in the 80s, I liked androgyny, but that was dangerous, and sleeping around (or trying to sleep around) was a way of off-setting that.  I don't think its any surpirse that some of the worst attitudes were displayed first in 70s glam rock, and later in bands like Motley Crue, who looked like girls, but behaved lke male arseholes.

Should add I never did anything non-consensual, or slept with anyone under-age, although my attitude towards women wasn't great at that age.  I was under-age, and had a lot of sexual experiences with adults throughout the age of 14-18, mostly women, but clandestly a couple of men.  I lied about my age, I looked older than I was, and even had a couple of entire relationships where throughout my partner thought I was 4/5 years older than I actually was.  I don't think this was very cool behaviour, and it seems quite bizarre to me intuitively that they would potentially be seen as the abusers nowadays.  That is not in anyway a defence of people sleeping with those much younger than them, but I didn't feel like a child, I wanted to be an adult and felt like one, I lived on my own from age 16, and do not think I was damaged by those experiences.  I think if anything this possibly highlights the differential power relations between genders, but also that there was very much a yearning to be grown up when I was a teen, its why we all started smoking fags. I don't know if that is as strong today although I suspect it might be and it would be interesting to hear the views of that age group in relation to this subject..


----------



## existentialist (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sorry, but life is too short to plough through forty pages. I responded to one post, a post which stated the the 'evidence' was anecdotal. I do find it curious though, given the rising tendency for litigation, that those girls supposedly raped by Jimmy Page et al, have a. not made a complaint to the police, and b. no civil litigation has been launched.
> 
> I am not saying that under-age sex didn't take place, what I am saying is that there has been a stunning lack of allegations from the victims.


I appreciate that 40 pages is a lot to read, but in those pages were some interesting ideas about why that might be.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 16, 2016)

smokedout said:


> I don't think a lot of young people realise just how repressive society was when it came to sexuality.  Even when I was growing up in the 80s, and from a male perspective, sex outside of marriage or cohabitation was still frowned on by many, gender and sexuality was ruthlessly policed - the worst thing you could be at my school if you were a boy was 'a poof', even long hair was a big deal, porn barely existed until videos came along and a flash of female nudity in a Hollywood movie was enough to sell a film - most of me and my friends saw our first female nipple in films like Trading Places, or in a manky old copy of Razzle we found in a bush.  In this context sex was a way to rebel, and losing your virginity as young as possible was a way to gain social standing.  Whilst I can't speak for women, certainly a female friend of mine who shagged people in bands a lot older than her appeared to be doing this both as a form of rebellion, and enjoyment, even if like many other vices, it could be a bit hollow and sordid.
> 
> Of course one of the upshots of sexual repression and resistance to it was that this often manifested in ways that seems very unpleasant by contemporary standards, the aforementioned Trading Places is horrifyingly misogynist, the kind of porn that got passed around after the advent of video - pretty much every boy in my school probably watched some of Animal Farm (don't google it you guessed right) - was  worse than much of the readily available porn teenage boys watch now, and a lot of the music, both mainstream and alternative, was sexist crap.  I guess this is what happens when a sexual revolution happens within patriarchy, the gains made in the 60s, 70s and 80s did not overthrow male dominance, what we were actually seeing was a shift in patriarchy from the denial of female sexuality to the exploitation and commodification of female sexuality.  Within the space opened up by that change empowerment could be found, but it also masked a fuck of a lot of abuse.



Having given the matter a great deal of thought, all porn is essentially misogynistic.  It also bears no no semblance whatsoever to a genuine male/female relationship, and distorts young boys view of what a relationship should be.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 16, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I appreciate that 40 pages is a lot to read, but in those pages were some interesting ideas about why that might be.



I'm sure there are, but that is what they are, ideas, aka speculation.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm sure there are, but that is what they are, ideas, aka speculation.


You've read them, then?


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato I may not have participated much in this discussion but have read every page and they are worth your time. There are some generously frank testimonies and thoughtful contributions, for which I am grateful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Having given the matter a great deal of thought, all porn is essentially misogynistic.  It also bears no no semblance whatsoever to a genuine male/female relationship, and distorts young boys view of what a relationship should be.


what, even porn written by women for women?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sorry, but life is too short to plough through forty pages. I responded to one post, a post which stated the the 'evidence' was anecdotal. I do find it curious though, given the rising tendency for litigation, that those girls supposedly raped by Jimmy Page et al, have a. not made a complaint to the police, and b. no civil litigation has been launched.
> 
> I am not saying that under-age sex didn't take place, what I am saying is that there has been a stunning lack of allegations from the victims.


have you ever read a book longer than 40 pages?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Anecdotal evidence is not countenanced in a court of law, I wonder why that is?


yes it is.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jan 16, 2016)

Some women have mentioned that they have had or would have had sex with older men when they were underage girls, especially with pop stars. From what I observed as a child, this was fairly normal behaviour for young girls. What isn't normal, or acceptable, is a grown man, a 'pop star' abusing his position of power and fucking an obviously under age girl. She was a schoolgirl, almost half his age, and regardless of whether or not she threw herself at him, it was his responsibility to say no, but he didn't say no, he plied her with drugs and fucked her, which, in any right-minded person's head, makes him a nonce, and his obvious position of power makes it even worse, IMO.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what, even porn written by women for women?


Erm, even women can be misogynistic. They can be the worst. It's the grannies, not the dads, who preside over fgm ceremonies. People buy into the culture. Everyone does: they want to fit in, be accepted, gain authority. This is one of the reasons that railing against the patriarchy is pissing in the wind.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes it is.



I think he meant hearsay evidence, not the sharpest tool in the box old Sass, gotta make allowances


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 17, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Having given the matter a great deal of thought,* all porn is essentially misogynistic. * It also bears no no semblance whatsoever to a genuine male/female relationship, and distorts young boys view of what a relationship should be.



You've watched it all ?

For research purposes presumably ?

Fair play to you .


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Erm, even women can be misogynistic. They can be the worst. It's the grannies, not the dads, who preside over fgm ceremonies. People buy into the culture. Everyone does: they want to fit in, be accepted, gain authority. This is one of the reasons that railing against the patriarchy is pissing in the wind.


yeh. but that's coming from the starting point that all porn is misogynistick which i am not sure is either true or universally declared.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> This is one of the reasons that railing against the patriarchy is pissing in the wind.


Stand-up pissing in the wind presumably. Tricky business.

It's true there's a big problem with women actively participating in & perpetuating the same inauthentic performances of femininity / 'hotness' that porn culture has fed us.
_'Female Chauvinist Pigs'_ by Ariel Levy is a decent look at this for instance, 'raunch culture' she calls it. She says that it no longer makes sense to blame men and the main issue now is how women sexually objectify themselves & other women etc. But does that mean we should just give up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Erm, even women can be misogynistic. They can be the worst. It's the grannies, not the dads, who preside over fgm ceremonies. People buy into the culture. Everyone does: they want to fit in, be accepted, gain authority. This is one of the reasons that railing against the patriarchy is pissing in the wind.


having slept on the matter i think it's absolutely appalling to say all porn - every erotick depiction of sex - is misogynistick. it's saying women can derive no pleasure from the depiction of sex and all such depiction is oppressive. i do not believe that to be the case.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> having slept on the matter i think it's absolutely appalling to say all porn - every erotick depiction of sex - is misogynistick. it's saying women can derive no pleasure from the depiction of sex and all such depiction is oppressive. i do not believe that to be the case.


Had me thinking "is gay male porn misogynistic"? To some extent possibly but all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Had me thinking "is gay male porn misogynistic"? To some extent possibly but all?


it seems that from the dawn of time, from the earliest day of recorded history, throughout the histories of art, literature, film, theatre, that every single depiction of sex designed to arouse - no matter whether straight, bi, gay, lesbian, whatever - without exception these have been misogynistick. Sasaferrato and bluescreen agree this and they are honourable posters.


----------



## Ranbay (Jan 17, 2016)

Is your own home made porn with the wife misogynistick?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2016)

I agree that the porn industry is appalling and really exploitative but surely wanting women never to be seen or express their sexuality is just as bad, if not worse? Try watching porn in raqqa for example? I don't know. My objection to porn is mostly based on the conditions suffered by workers and to a lesser extent the fact it can create unrealistic expectations of sex (but then so can the entire film industry)

There's a couple of women here who do what can be described as adult performances on here and their work and openness about their sexuality etc has actually made me a lot more comfortable and less ashamed of my body etc. 

Like i don't know. The commercial sex industry is fucking appalling but to say every depiction of porn is misogynistic by definition is something i can't really go along with as the definition of porn could be so easily extended into other things, like pictures or depictions of women in general.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Jan 17, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I think the problem with the left is that 'casting of the shackles of bourgeois morality' or whatever is perfectly fine, but it can used as a cover for explorative behavior. And it can be hard to tell the difference. Hell it's not going to be easy to agree where the boundary is. The individuals involved certainty won't see themselves as exploiting anyone. Mind you does anyone ever see themselves like that? I also think the left can attract some slightly odd people who can end up in what can look to others like odd relationships.



Problem is that there isn't one bourgeois morality these days. Sexual liberation and drug taking is just as much a part of bourgeois morality as anything else, as it's been so tightly integrated. And this is coming from someone who enjoys 2 or 10 spliffs!

Actually, I'm going to disagree with the poster above who claimed that the 60s and 70s counter culture was revolutionary. If anything patriarchy has become more diffuse, less regimented, more improvisatory.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 17, 2016)

How about we just remove the word "all"?

The vast majority of porn is misogynistic. IME women tend not to require the objectification of men in the same way men seem to think they have an inalienable right to do to women.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> Is your own home made porn with the wife misogynistick?


This has morphed into another interesting and useful discussion...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> How about we just remove the word "all"?
> 
> The vast majority of porn is misogynistic. IME women tend not to require the objectification of men in the same way men seem to think they have an inalienable right to do to women.



They tend to but i think to some extent that has changed if the cafe that i was in on the way to Leeds was anything to go by. I walked in and was shocked to see several photos of fully nude blokes on the wall behind the serving counter, 70s pin up style. . The people working there were all women in their 20s and 30s.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Had me thinking "is gay male porn misogynistic"? To some extent possibly but all?


Did You Know that gay male porn is one of the most popular genres amongst women who watch porn?

And what about things like this? (Khajurahu aprox 100 AD)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> How about we just remove the word "all"?
> 
> The vast majority of porn is misogynistic. IME women tend not to require the objectification of men in the same way men seem to think they have an inalienable right to do to women.


tbh that does not seem like an advance on previous discussion.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 17, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I agree that the porn industry is appalling and really exploitative but surely wanting women never to be seen or express their sexuality is just as bad, if not worse? Try watching porn in raqqa for example? I don't know. My objection to porn is mostly based on the conditions suffered by workers and to a lesser extent the fact it can create unrealistic expectations of sex (but then so can the entire film industry)


Haha, I just had a similar discussion with Mrs E. She likes romantic comedy films; I don't - I loathe them with a deep and burning passions, all the more for watching Mrs E getting a sniffle, or going "Awww" at a particularly syrupy moment.

And I've given some thought as to why I loathe them - it's because they sell us a bill of goods. They create an expectation around romance and LURVE that is utterly unrealistic, and a parody of the real thing. Sound familiar yet?

Because I think that's exactly the same problem porn demonstrates: it reduces the act of sex to a woman-objectifying, mechanistic formula without light or shade, in exactly the same way that romantic comedies reduce the whole emotional relationship thing to a mechanistic formula that doesn't quite so overtly objectify women, but lays the groundwork nicely, and both create an impression that artificialiality and superficiality are valuable parts of both process.

Obviously, the consequences of someone believing that life is like romantic comedies are slightly less (though only slightly, trust me on this) disturbing than those of people believing that sex is (or should be) just like porn, but I still think that both are unhelpful corruptions of reality.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 17, 2016)

Tbh i think romantic comedies and fifty shades of grey etc can be WORSE than porn in the attitudes they promote.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 17, 2016)

There is a big issue around us not providing proper education on porn / sex etc. A lot of very young children are watching porn and not having the space to discuss what they are seeing. It is quite normal for teenage boys to pressure their girlfriends into sending them nude images and then sharing them with the school when she does something he doesn't like, childline have seen a 132% increase in the number of children calling to talk about sexual images they have seen which has upset them. We can't keep expecting kids to be exposed to this stuff and not talk to them properly about it, they need the space and adult guidance to help them work through. We need to be a lot more confident to talk about sex and relationships with young people.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh that does not seem like an advance on previous discussion.



Why not? Are you saying there is no gender imbalance in sex? Are you one of these people who think sex work is empowering for women? Not trying to put words in your mouth, genuinely trying to work out why you think my statement is no advance on previous discussion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Why not? Are you saying there is no gender imbalance in sex? Are you one of these people who think sex work is empowering for women? Not trying to put words in your mouth, genuinely trying to work out why you think my statement is no advance on previous discussion.


removing word 'all' from 'all porn is misogynistic' doesn't much move things forward. nor does an equation of sex work, usually used as a synonym for prostitution, with porn. i am not myself interested in the quantity of porn which is or is not misogynistick: that's a navel-gazing exercise. i think your assertion the vast majority of porn misogynistick ignores other women's arguments in favour of porn and


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

imo substitutes your individual view of porn for other views which may welcome some forms of porn while abhorring others. there appears little nuance in your view nor any means by which one may sort the misogynistick from the rest.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> there appears little nuance in your view nor any means by which one may sort the misogynistick from the rest.



People have been looking into this for a while, and have made an effort to get beyond removing the word  "all".. 
There have been 10 years for instance of the Annual Feminist Porn Awards, in Canada. The criteria for nominees there are as follows 

Women and/or traditionally marginalized people were involved in the direction, production and/or conception of the work.
The work depicts genuine pleasure, agency and desire for all performers, especially women and traditionally marginalized people.
The work expands the boundaries of sexual representation on film, challenges stereotypes and presents a vision that sets the content apart from most mainstream pornography. 
Feminist pornography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> We can't keep expecting kids to be exposed to this stuff and not talk to them properly about it, they need the space and adult guidance to help them work through. We need to be a lot more confident to talk about sex and relationships with young people.



Absolutely.
Can I just put this here ? I think it's brilliant. It's a 5 minute animated film based on Toward A Performance Model Of Sex, a superb essay on the problem with commodifying the whole subject. The woman who made this film it is an internet friend of mine and a sex educator working in schools to help with just what you're talking about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> People have been looking into this for a while, and have made an effort to get beyond removing the word  "all"..
> There have been 10 years for instance of the Annual Feminist Porn Awards, in Canada. The criteria for nominees there are as follows
> 
> Women and/or traditionally marginalized people were involved in the direction, production and/or conception of the work.
> ...


thank you for moving things on to quality from quantity


----------



## Chris Dove (Jan 17, 2016)

andysays said:


> View attachment 81920



'*Blackstar*'*Bowie bows out*
Hats off to the Brixton boy extraordinaire who left this mortal coil 3 days after reaching a remarkable milestone. With the release of his 25th studio album 'Blackstar', Bowie bows out in cool, classic style.
During the months I was Brixton Town Centre Manager, you could see equally dapper/deranged dudes and dames strutting their stuff up, down and every which way around Electric Avenue.
RIP David Bowie – you lit a spark in most of us.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> removing word 'all' from 'all porn is misogynistic' doesn't much move things forward. nor does an equation of sex work, usually used as a synonym for prostitution, with porn. i am not myself interested in the quantity of porn which is or is not misogynistick: that's a navel-gazing exercise. i think your assertion the vast majority of porn misogynistick ignores other women's arguments in favour of porn and



Well for starters I didn't simply remove the word 'all' did I? I replaced it with 'the vast majority'. But, fair enough, you say that to you this is a navel gazing exercise. Personally I see it as an evidence-based proof of the imbalance of power. I don't see an awful lot of room for 'nuance' when the vast majority of search terms for porn on the Internet rely on straightforward misogyny or a preference for teenagers (and the obvious sexism that implies). And somebody who works in porn is still a sex worker.

You quote 'other women's arguments in favour of porn' as if it's some sort of balanced world and patriarchy and misogyny don't exist. This is, to me, pure bollocks and smacks of someone usually trying to justify their own actions in watching porn. "Oh, it's ok, some woman I know said so". Yeah. Not trying to spoil your wank or anything but personally I'd argue that for every woman who thinks its ok, I'll find you several hundred who are uncomfortable with it. Oh, but that's me and my navel gazing quantity argument again isn't it? I'm not for the 'empowering' argument. I could be a stockbroker. It doesn't empower me against the iniquitous capitalist system. It just means I'm joining in and enjoying the spoils.

If there are women making porn genuinely depicting pleasure, all power to them. Id say they are a tiny minority. And to quote that in a debate about pornography in a thread nominally about pop stars and groupies is disingenuous to say the least.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Well for starters I didn't simply remove the word 'all' did I? I replaced it with 'the vast majority'. But, fair enough, you say that to you this is a navel gazing exercise. Personally I see it as an evidence-based proof of the imbalance of power. I don't see an awful lot of room for 'nuance' when the vast majority of search terms for porn on the Internet rely on straightforward misogyny or a preference for teenagers (and the obvious sexism that implies). And somebody who works in porn is still a sex worker.
> 
> You quote 'other women's arguments in favour of porn' as if it's some sort of balanced world and patriarchy and misogyny don't exist. This is, to me, pure bollocks and smacks of someone usually trying to justify their own actions in watching porn. "Oh, it's ok, some woman I know said so". Yeah. Not trying to spoil your wank or anything but personally I'd argue that for every woman who thinks its ok, I'll find you several hundred who are uncomfortable with it. Oh, but that's me and my navel gazing quantity argument again isn't it? I'm not for the 'empowering' argument. I could be a stockbroker. It doesn't empower me against the iniquitous capitalist system. It just means I'm joining in and enjoying the spoils.
> 
> If there are women making porn genuinely depicting pleasure, all power to them. Id say they are a tiny minority. And to quote that in a debate about pornography in a thread nominally about pop stars and groupies is disingenuous to say the least.


i would appreciate it if you read my posts on the subject.


----------



## bimble (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> If there are women making porn genuinely depicting pleasure, all power to them. Id say they are a tiny minority. And to quote that in a debate about pornography in a thread nominally about pop stars and groupies is disingenuous to say the least.


They surely are, a tiny minority. And you're right we've strayed a long way from Bowie. Interesting subject though and relevant because of whether or not women involved (in porn , in shagging rock stars) can be said to have agency and enjoy what they are doing or are just being exploited because of the power imbalances that we all live in etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Well for starters I didn't simply remove the word 'all' did I? I replaced it with 'the vast majority'. But, fair enough, you say that to you this is a navel gazing exercise. Personally I see it as an evidence-based proof of the imbalance of power. I don't see an awful lot of room for 'nuance' when the vast majority of search terms for porn on the Internet rely on straightforward misogyny or a preference for teenagers (and the obvious sexism that implies). And somebody who works in porn is still a sex worker.
> 
> You quote 'other women's arguments in favour of porn' as if it's some sort of balanced world and patriarchy and misogyny don't exist. This is, to me, pure bollocks and smacks of someone usually trying to justify their own actions in watching porn. "Oh, it's ok, some woman I know said so". Yeah. Not trying to spoil your wank or anything but personally I'd argue that for every woman who thinks its ok, I'll find you several hundred who are uncomfortable with it. Oh, but that's me and my navel gazing quantity argument again isn't it? I'm not for the 'empowering' argument. I could be a stockbroker. It doesn't empower me against the iniquitous capitalist system. It just means I'm joining in and enjoying the spoils.
> 
> If there are women making porn genuinely depicting pleasure, all power to them. Id say they are a tiny minority. And to quote that in a debate about pornography in a thread nominally about pop stars and groupies is disingenuous to say the least.


so it seems fpr you porn is intdrnet-based video. i have cast it rather wider. you say i sound like i'm trying to justify my watching porn. isay you sound like someone desperate for anargument but not finding one. i also say you've shown yourself less than honest on this thread and tbe post here quoted no exception.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 31, 2016)

Eek a Mouse and his love for his Virgin Girl....

We tek a walk for a Kingston mall,
Whole heap a people jus' a start to laugh,
Because a she too short an' a me too tall,
She too short an' a me too tall, ey.

Avoids mentioning her age though....


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Well for starters I didn't simply remove the word 'all' did I? I replaced it with 'the vast majority'. But, fair enough, you say that to you this is a navel gazing exercise. Personally I see it as an evidence-based proof of the imbalance of power. I don't see an awful lot of room for 'nuance' when the vast majority of search terms for porn on the Internet rely on straightforward misogyny or a preference for teenagers (and the obvious sexism that implies). And somebody who works in porn is still a sex worker.
> 
> You quote 'other women's arguments in favour of porn' as if it's some sort of balanced world and patriarchy and misogyny don't exist. This is, to me, pure bollocks and smacks of someone usually trying to justify their own actions in watching porn. "Oh, it's ok, some woman I know said so". Yeah. Not trying to spoil your wank or anything but personally I'd argue that for every woman who thinks its ok, I'll find you several hundred who are uncomfortable with it. Oh, but that's me and my navel gazing quantity argument again isn't it? I'm not for the 'empowering' argument. I could be a stockbroker. It doesn't empower me against the iniquitous capitalist system. It just means I'm joining in and enjoying the spoils.
> 
> If there are women making porn genuinely depicting pleasure, all power to them. Id say they are a tiny minority. And to quote that in a debate about pornography in a thread nominally about pop stars and groupies is disingenuous to say the least.


oh: and millions of pms of support or a varistion thereof doesn't constitute an argument.


----------



## planetgeli (Jan 31, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so it seems fpr you porn is intdrnet-based video. i have cast it rather wider. you say i sound like i'm trying to justify my watching porn. isay you sound like someone desperate for anargument but not finding one. i also say you've shown yourself less than honest on this thread and tbe post here quoted no exception.



I'd say you've spent the weekend spunking over your keyboard while looking up my old posts. I've had a weekend of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

You sad, sad, little man. Get some friends.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 31, 2016)

Nobody stop this argument. Looks like it could get quite good.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 31, 2016)

And by good I mean nasty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I'd say you've spent the weekend spunking over your keyboard while looking up my old posts. I've had a weekend of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
> 
> You sad, sad, little man. Get some friends.


you've some front suggesting your posts are pornographic. i expect the only sex you've had's with your vacuum cleaner, the drugs some paracetamol to cope with a slight headache, and the rock 'n roll a straight-up lie.

i would like to see you deal with the argument rather than your inaccurate beliefs of my love life but the way you've quoted a post from two weeks ago as tho it were posted yesterday doesn't fill me with confidence you have the wherewithal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

Favelado said:


> And by good I mean nasty.


it won't get nasty enough for you because planetgeli's a one trick pony.


----------



## bimble (Jan 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Eek a Mouse and his love for his Virgin Girl....
> 
> We tek a walk for a Kingston mall,
> Whole heap a people jus' a start to laugh,
> ...





This one's more specific, and pragmatic. 

'woman you're pretty but you'll get no response; what you're looking at is a life sentence ..
go home to your mama & check me 2 years later' etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 31, 2016)

Favelado planetgeli's like phildwyer only without the intellect, charm and bonhomie. and where dwyer will ruthlessly pursue an argument, where even diamond will pursue an argument, planetgeli doesn't. doesn't have the stamina and all they ever do is some shit ad hominems which would have shamed ernestolynch.


----------



## Favelado (Jan 31, 2016)

It doesn't have to be high quality. Just vicious.


----------



## LiamO (Jan 31, 2016)

ernesto is back. he PM'd me yesterday.

Or should I say I received 'a PM of support from him', for added bang for buck


----------



## marshall (Jan 31, 2016)

there's always been something of the night about Pickers, in a good way mind.


----------



## Cid (Jan 31, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Eek a Mouse and his love for his Virgin Girl....
> 
> We tek a walk for a Kingston mall,
> Whole heap a people jus' a start to laugh,
> ...




To be fair he is 6' 6".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I'd say you've spent the weekend spunking over your keyboard while looking up my old posts. I've had a weekend of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
> 
> You sad, sad, little man. Get some friends.



I find your constant "worrying" around the subject of another poster's ejaculations rather concerning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2016)

LiamO said:


> ernesto is back. he PM'd me yesterday.
> 
> Or should I say I received 'a PM of support from him', for added bang for buck



He's always coming back. He's *that* pathetic.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 1, 2016)

Oh VP. look at the wretch who 'liked' your post. eeeuuww.


----------



## bluescreen (Feb 1, 2016)

You guys. 
Really, have a word with yourselves.


----------



## keybored (Feb 1, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> I've had a weekend of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.



That's what weekends are for 
Are you some 12yo troll or something?


----------



## planetgeli (Feb 1, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I find your constant "worrying" around the subject of another poster's ejaculations rather concerning.




Hey, and I find your constant support for the Aravindan Balakrishnan of Urban equally concerning. Are we quits?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Hey, and I find your constant support for the Aravindan Balakrishnan of Urban equally concerning. Are we quits?


do you wank over your posts?


----------



## 8115 (Feb 1, 2016)

Well, this is _lovely. _


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 1, 2016)

8115 said:


> Well, this is _lovely. _


here, have some popcorn


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Hey, and I find your constant support for the Aravindan Balakrishnan of Urban equally concerning. Are we quits?



Urban doesn't have an Aravindan Balakrishnan, and the fact that you're attempting to tar *any* poster with that brush (cultleader/rapist) shows what a worthless cockwipe you are.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 1, 2016)

In fairness it's about the only epithet that hasn't been thrown at Casually Red lately. Still, time enough...


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Favelado planetgeli's like phildwyer only without the intellect, charm and bonhomie. and where dwyer will ruthlessly pursue an argument



Blimey, one goes away for a couple of weeks and returns to find oneself praised by Pickers.  I must do it more often.

Women absolutely love porn, btw.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2016)

phildwyer said:


> Blimey, one goes away for a couple of weeks and returns to find oneself praised by Pickers.  I must do it more often.


 I've just returned from a birthday do that my boss had at a Durham College. All night I've been telling people who were after the bogs, 'turn right at the portrait of Catherine of Braganza'. I see your love for Pickmans in equally courtly terms.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2016)

LiamO said:


> In fairness it's about the only epithet that hasn't been thrown at Casually Red lately. Still, time enough...



Funny enough there, I was just planning the occupation of the Oul Sudetenland , as you do when youre a crazed " strasserite " , while signing a few death warrants and the like, as you do, and I found myself humming along to this so.


----------



## phillm (Feb 16, 2018)

LiamO said:


> I Lost My Virginity to David Bowie



hmm that's a grim read , off your head and group fucking children. Not a good look in anyones book.


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

phillm said:


> hmm that's a grim read , off your head and group fucking children. Not a good look in anyones book.



And totally, utterly unsubstantiated by certainty or proof.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of prurient gossip and heresay.

It's only Rock n Roll after all!


----------



## TopCat (Feb 16, 2018)

Lots of women started having sex as an eary teenager thinking this was mature and clever etc and dont want to consider if they were specifically targetted due to their young age.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> And totally, utterly unsubstantiated by certainty or proof.
> 
> But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of prurient gossip and heresay.
> 
> It's only Rock n Roll after all!


Bowie’s sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of times, but brushed under the carpet because of his idol status.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> Bowie’s sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of times...



...with the glaring inconsistencies growing on each occasion.


----------



## Sea Star (Feb 16, 2018)

.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

Raheem said:


> ...with the glaring inconsistencies growing on each occasion.


He never sued for libel tho did he? I wonder why. If someone accused you of statutory rape/paedophilia, call it what you want, wouldn't you sue? of course you couldn't if it was true!


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> Bowie’s sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of times, but brushed under the carpet because of his idol status.



Evidence please. Not heresay or gossip or something found on websites. But  But actual proof (including any charges, arrests etc if they've been "documented plenty of time").

 Include in your reply the following please:

 (1) Documented evidence by police or the relevant authorities resulting in an arrest after the appropriate investigations.
(2) Dates and times of such investigations.
(3)Documentation/proof of any arrest warrants.
(4) Evidence/proof of any charges brought. 
(5) Court documentations or reportage of any case that ensued.
(6) Evidence /proof of guilt by said authorities.
(7) Sentence carried out by the said person who had "sexual practices with young girls" that "has been documented plenty of times."

Remember you said quite clearly "sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of time". Your words. As such, any of the above should be easy to find.

Thanks.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Thanks.



Bowie fan with head in sand alert!


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Evidence please. Not heresay or gossip or something found on websites. But  But actual proof (including any charges, arrests etc if they've been "documented plenty of time").
> 
> Include in your reply the following please:
> 
> ...


If you applied the same test to Jimmy Savile at the time of his death no one could have produced all that, most of it even now could not be produced, but do you want to claim that Savile was not guilty?


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> Bowie fan with head in sand alert!



Nope. 

Still awaiting your response....


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Nope.
> 
> Still awaiting your response....


I refer to you to my previous post.


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> If you applied the same test to Jimmy Savile at the time of his death no one could have produced all that, most of it even now could not be produced, but do you want to claim that Savile was not guilty?



Nope again. 

Please answer the thread. Do not deflect. Evidence please.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> Nope again.
> 
> Please answer the thread. Do not deflect. Evidence please.


so why do you believe Savile was guilty with no evidence of guilt, no court cases etc?


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

How many "young girls" put in any complaint of sexual assault against Bowie whatsoever during his lifetime and, especially, since his death? Either here or in the US? Especially if,as you said, "sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of times." Where? List it, or some of it? Especially those that have resulted in charges or any type of investigation.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 16, 2018)

RainbowTown said:


> How many "young girls" put in any complaint of sexual assault against Bowie whatsoever during his lifetime and, especially, since his death? Either here or in the US? Especially if,as you said, "sexual practices with young girls has been documented plenty of times." Where? List it, or some of it? Especially those that have resulted in charges or any type of investigation.


One of the reasons none of that exists is that these girls did not see it as rape or abuse, it was different times etc., and they were willing participants. That does not however make it right. Plus there is a 6 years astute of limitations on this type of offence in use so even if years later they realised that as children they could not have legally consented no prosecution could have been made anyway.
Mattox for instance still speaks fondly of her time with Bowie, but the fact that he fucked her when she was 15 seems on the face of it to be a fact.


----------



## RainbowTown (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> One of the reasons none of that exists is that these girls did not see it as rape or abuse, it was different times etc., and they were willing participants. That does not however make it right. Plus there is a 6 years astute of limitations on this type of offence in use so even if years later they realised that as children they could not have legally consented no prosecution could have been made anyway.
> Mattox for instance still speaks fondly of her time with Bowie, but the fact that he fucked her when she was 15 seems on the face of it to be a fact.



So really there is no proof. Simple as that. It's finding guilt by proxy and heresay and tenuous supposition. Where there is no actual evidence of it. Anyone can claim that they slept with someone. Whether it be consenting groupies or whoever. Anyone could turn around and say I slept with somebody consensually at the age of 15, 14, 13 whatever. Somebody could say that about any person - anyone on this board, for instance. Anyone. My point is, you said "sexual practices with young girls" (not one girl, but girls) that has been "documented plenty of times." There's just no proof of that, as no other "young girl" or "girls" - not one- has ever come forward. Even now, two years after his death. 
Bowie was certainly sexually promiscious in the 60's, 70's  and 80's- including men. As where lots of rock stars and groups (indeed going back to the 50s). Like you said, it was different times. But there is just no real evidence whatsoever that he had "sexual practices" with "young girls". To me anyway. That's just my take.  Though he most certainly bedded some of the most beautiful and famous women of his era - and even Mick Jagger! Oh, to be a fly on _that _wall!


----------



## Raheem (Feb 16, 2018)

1927 said:


> the fact that he fucked her when she was 15 seems on the face of it to be a fact.



The crux of all this is that what you say is only true if your definition of a fact is "anything that anyone ever says".

It's a while since I read through the various accounts given by LM and her friend Sable, but they are totally at odds one with another, to the extent that there is no real possibility of reading them all and having any confidence that any part of them is true. They can't possibly be 100% true because of all the contradictions. (Which, of course, is different from saying that no part of them can possibly be true.)

From memory, LM originally had the episode starting with her being picked out of the crowd at a Bowie concert at Long Beach in 1973 as a suitable shag for Bowie, by his bodyguard. Bowie and her (and, in some versions, Sable too) then arrange to have lunch the next day and spend the rest of the day on an extended date at various LA bars before going back to his hotel and spending all night together until they are woken by Angie Bowie the next morning.

The major problem with this tale is that Bowie actually performed at the Hollywood Palladium the day after the Long Beach concert, so it can't possibly have happened. I don't know if Lm became aware of this difficulty or what, but in later versions she starts the story two days earlier. She gets invited, either by word-of-mouth or by a phonecall from Bowie's people, on a date with Bowie, and the next day a limo comes to pick her up from her mum's house. At the end of the story, instead of being disturbed by Bowie's wife, Bowie gives her a thankyou gift of a handful of tickets to the concert where the story had started in the earlier version.

There's also the question of who Bowie had sex with. In some versions, it's just Lori, and in some Lori makes the charitable suggestion that Sable should join them. When Sable has told the story, it's Sable who has sex with Bowie and she has no idea where Lori has disappeared to. Sable's version also has a different beginning, where the girls sneak into Bowie's hotel to track him down.

There's various other issues with the stories, and I can't remember them all, but one is the claim that John Lennon and Yoko Ono popped in to see Bowie while he and Lori were eating in a restaurant. This seems unlikely because, according to other accounts, Bowie and Lennon only met for the first time a couple of years later.  And there's another story told by Lori about her having sex with Mick Jagger when they both went to the recording sessions for a Ringo Starr album, but no-one else seems to remember Jagger having been present at these sessions.


----------



## Santino (Feb 16, 2018)

Winot said:


> Great art has always existed side by side with unacceptable behaviour eg Eric Gill. You can celebrate one and simultaneously condemn the other.


Eric Gill was not a great artist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 17, 2018)

Santino said:


> Eric Gill was not a great artist.


I was disappointed to find out that Gill Sans was not a cool female font designer


----------



## phillm (Feb 17, 2018)

Santino said:


> Eric Gill was not a great artist.



That's a matter of opinion certainly very good by any objective standards.

_Eric Gill, long dead and widely considered to be one of the greatest and most influential British artists of the 20th century, seems at first to stand apart from all this – and indeed, in the years after MacCarthy’s biography was published, his reputation only grew._

Eric Gill: can we separate the artist from the abuser?


----------



## nogojones (Feb 17, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> I was disappointed to find out that Gill Sans was not a cool female font designer


Was she any good as a comedian?


----------



## Winot (Feb 17, 2018)

Santino said:


> Eric Gill was not a great artist.



I must have been thinking of his brother Ernie.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 8, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> 13. Prior to 1999 it was 12.


How could law makers possible have thought "OK, Maybe 12 years old is a bit young to fuck little girls. Perhaps we should up the age to 13"?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 8, 2018)

8den said:


> Most adult men aren't a 70s rock star and Maddox clearly wasn't a typical 15 year old girl.


She looks exactly like a typical 15 year old girl to me, and, by all accounts, acted like one.
Are you saying it's OK to have sex with an underage girl because she looks 16?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 8, 2018)

The whole 'baby groupie' scene was pretty ugly and no one comes out of it well. 

I wouldn't have a record collection if I suddenly boycotted all those artists involved, but I certainly don't condone their behavior because of their talent.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 9, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> How could law makers possible have thought "OK, Maybe 12 years old is a bit young to fuck little girls. Perhaps we should up the age to 13"?


It's not about when it's legal to fuck them - that age has been 16 for a long time. 13 is the age at which they are legally deemed to be capable of consent. Which doesn't seem that unreasonable to me - the vast majority of people have reached a level of development by 13 that should enable them to make choices.

It affects what the other party is charged with. Below 13, it's (potentially) rape, on the basis that consent is not able to be given. After 13,it could still be rape, if non-consensual, but could also be one of the other range of child sex offences.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 17, 2021)

Here's a new one that ought to go down about as well as the Bowie stuff or the Iggy Pop stuff...









						Bob Dylan sued for alleged sexual abuse of 12-year-old in 1960s
					

An unnamed woman has sued folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan alleging he sexually abused her after giving her drugs and alcohol in 1965 when she was 12 years old.




					www.reuters.com
				




I wonder who will believe her, in the absence of evidence.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 17, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Here's a new one that ought to go down about as well as the Bowie stuff or the Iggy Pop stuff...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not sure I can handle posters calling for nuance or justifying this shit.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 17, 2021)

We probably need a "Cool Iconic Sex Abuser Excuses" bingo card.


----------



## tim (Aug 17, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Here's a new one that ought to go down about as well as the Bowie stuff or the Iggy Pop stuff...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If true, it's unlikely to be the only case. It's unfortunate that Reuters have shoddily messed up either on the year this is alleged to have happened or the current age of the complainant.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 17, 2021)

tim said:


> If true, it's unlikely to be the only case. It's unfortunate that Reuters have shoddily messed up either on the year this is alleged to have happened or the current age of the complainant.



Where? It says it's a 56 year old claim, not that she's 56.


----------



## andysays (Aug 17, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Where? It says it's a 56 year old claim, not that she's 56.


And even the reference to a "56 year old claim" appears to be a quote from Dylan's spokesperson.

According to the BBC story, the actual legal claim was made very recently



> Her legal documents were filed on Friday at the New York Supreme Court under the state's Child Victims Act. The claim was submitted a day before the closure of a temporary legal "look back window" in New York, which allowed historical abuse allegations to be filed.



BTW, I'm not suggesting that anyone should draw any conclusions from the delay in making the claim or even the fact that it was made the day before the closure of this legal deadline, just trying to clarify what has actually happened.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Here's a new one that ought to go down about as well as the Bowie stuff or the Iggy Pop stuff...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dylan was going out with Sarah from 1964 and married her in 1965.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 17, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Dylan was going out with Sarah from 1964 and married her in 1965.


TBF, that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't up to anything else...


----------



## Reno (Aug 17, 2021)

For most of the six week period when the abuse was alleged to have taken place, Dylan was touring the West Coast and the UK, some of which has been documented in _Don't Look Back,_ the Pennebaker documentary about Dylan. Doesn't mean he couldn't have popped back to NYC to abuse the girl during breaks but together with the time passed since, they will have a tough time proving the abuse took place.









						Bob Dylan Sued For Sexually Abusing A Minor In 1965
					

A woman has filed a lawsuit against Bob Dylan saying the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame singer-songwriter groomed and sexually assaulted her in 1965 in New York City when she was 12 years old. The plai…




					deadline.com
				












						Bob Dylan denies claim that he sexually abused a 12-year-old in 1965
					

A spokesperson tells Consequence, "The 56-year-old claim is untrue and will be vigorously defended."




					consequence.net


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

Reno said:


> For most of the six week period when the abuse was alleged to have taken place, Dylan was touring the West Coast and the UK, some of which has been documented in _Don't Look Back,_ the Pennebaker documentary about Dylan. Doesn't mean he couldn't have popped back to NYC to abuse the girl during breaks but together with the time passed since, they will have a tough time proving the abuse took place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeh you'd have thought that before submitting the papers the lawyers would have examined the dylan chronology to ensure they wouldn't come unstuck on something like him not being where their client said he was


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh you'd have thought that before submitting the papers the lawyers would have examined the dylan chronology to ensure they wouldn't come unstuck on something like him not being where their client said he was



That article states: 



> The plaintiff, who identified herself as J.C. in the suit filed last week in New York State Supreme Court, alleges that the incidents occurred over a six-week period from April-May of 1965 while Dylan resided at the Chelesa Hotel in Manhattan.
> 
> The suit (read it here), brought under the New York Child Victims Act, seeks to recover damages for the plaintiff’s “severe psychological damage and emotional trauma caused by Dylan’s wrongful and criminal acts.”
> 
> However, the suit already might have hit a pothole, at least in terms of timing from 1965. According to the singer’s calendar from that year on a number of fansites, Dylan was on tour with Joan Baez for most of March and then in April in the UK for a tour there that ended with a show at the Royal Albert Hall on May 10. That’s a far cry from being at the Chelsea Hotel in NYC during that same time span.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

editor said:


> That article states:


yes, you'd have thought her lawyers would have done some sort of due diligence on the chronology

regardless of any merits her case may have, it doesn't speak to her attorneys' competence


----------



## A380 (Aug 17, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> We probably need a "Cool Iconic Sex Abuser Excuses" bingo card.


Yes, and why its 'different' for cool progressive  musicians as opposed to minor royals and politicians


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yes, and why its 'different' for cool progressive  musicians as opposed to minor royals and politicians



It isn't.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 17, 2021)

Googled his gigography, and he seems to have not been on tour from 10-29 April and 11-31 May.


----------



## tim (Aug 17, 2021)

planetgeli said:


> Where? It says it's a 56 year old claim, not that she's 56.


Yes, that's what happens when I read stuff too early in the morning


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

tim said:


> Yes, that's what happens when I read stuff too early in the morning



I know what you mean. The article gets more and more bizarre, then you go back to the beginning and find the misread word.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Googled his gigography, and he seems to have not been on tour from 10-29 April and 11-31 May.


11-31 may: bd in portugal and england, leaves england on 2 june

and mar / april - you missed a couple of gigs:





__





						SOMETHING IS HAPPENING
					





					www.bjorner.com


----------



## Reno (Aug 17, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Googled his gigography, and he seems to have not been on tour from 10-29 April and 11-31 May.





			https://www.bjorner.com/DSN00785%20(65).htm
		


Looks like a busy schedule. There are gaps, but no 6 week period in April and May.


----------



## Raheem (Aug 17, 2021)

Reno said:


> https://www.bjorner.com/DSN00785%20(65).htm
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a busy schedule.


Not compared to working.


----------



## Reno (Aug 17, 2021)

Im no Dylan fan and have no time for abusers, what puzzles me is that the representatives of the claimant have done such a poor job in checking facts when they are public record, accessible to anybody. There are multiple online sources which show that it would have been impossible for Dylan to have a 6 week break in April and May to commit the abuse in NYC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

according to 11 or 12 Things Remembered Well About the Chelsea Hotel dylan kept an apartment at the chelsea hotel from 1961-1964. so another (possible) crack in the case against him


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> according to 11 or 12 Things Remembered Well About the Chelsea Hotel dylan kept an apartment at the chelsea hotel from 1961-1964. so another (possible) crack in the case against him



So, he didn't remember her well in the Chelsea Hotel...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> So, he didn't remember her well in the Chelsea Hotel...


it's a load of famous blue flannel


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> 11-31 may: bd in portugal and england, leaves england on 2 june
> 
> and mar / april - you missed a couple of gigs:
> View attachment 284029
> ...



He spent a lot of that British tour with Dana Gillespie, who had just turned 16.



> when Bob Dylan landed in London in April 1965, Gillespie attended his press conference at the Savoy hotel. Dylan showed greater interest in her than the UK press and invited Dana to join him back in his hotel room (and subsequently accompany him on tour)











						Bowie, bed-hopping and the blues: the wild times of Dana Gillespie
					

She tamed Keith Moon, got laughed into bed by Bob Dylan and went to a young David Bowie’s house for tuna sandwiches – but the blues singer’s 72 albums are what really define her




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> He spent a lot of that British tour with Dana Gillespie, who had just turned 16.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so she can alibi him then


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 17, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> so she can alibi him then



Shows he was promiscuous at the time and interested in having sex with girls much younger than himself, behaviour which seems to have been widely tolerated in the music scene of the time - guess we'll need to see if any other accusers or people who can corroborate the accuser's account come forward, with Dylan's very large and loyal fanbase, I can see why people would be reluctant to do so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Shows he was promiscuous at the time and interested in having sex with girls much younger than himself, behaviour which seems to have been widely tolerated in the music scene of the time - guess we'll need to see if any other accusers or people who can corroborate the accuser's account come forward, with Dylan's very large and loyal fanbase, I can see why people would be reluctant to do so.


i have no great interest in or knowledge of bob dylan, and i have no doubt that he's done some despicable things. but my interest was piqued by the current law suit, which seems likely to run into problems of chronology.

dylan was 24 at the time under discussion, and altho we raise an eyebrow at his relationship with gillespie _legally_ (if not morally) there was no offence being committed. it'd be interesting if anyone has a copy of 'bob dylan day by day', if they could look into it and see what the work reveals for spring 1965


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2021)

One thing that I see coming up on social media a lot today is people being confused why it took so long for the woman to lodge her complaint. Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular case,  I can say from personal experience that it can take_ decades_ to come to terms with sexual abuse and there could be many reasons why someone may not want to come forward.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 17, 2021)

editor said:


> One thing that I see coming up on social media a lot today is people being confused why it took so long for the woman to lodge her complaint. Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular case,  I can say from personal experience that it can take_ decades_ to come to terms with sexual abuse and there could be many reasons why someone may not want to come forward.



In this case, it was going to have to be now or never - a New York state law allowed a window in which people who said they were victims of childhood sexual abuse were allowed to file lawsuits relating to incidents much earlier than the statute of limitations normally allowed for, which closed on Saturday, it's why VIrginia Giuffre filed her lawsuit against Prince Andrew when she did.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

editor said:


> One thing that I see coming up on social media a lot today is people being confused why it took so long for the woman to lodge her complaint. Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular case,  I can say from personal experience that it can take_ decades_ to come to terms with sexual abuse and there could be many reasons why someone may not want to come forward.



Or from a cynical viewpoint, a request for money 'to keep it quiet' has been rebuffed.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 17, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> Or from a cynical viewpoint, a request for money 'to keep it quiet' has been rebuffed.



Legions of Dylan fans: "Why was this woman so reluctant to come forward before now? Also, I think she must be a greedy blackmailing liar."


----------



## existentialist (Aug 17, 2021)

editor said:


> One thing that I see coming up on social media a lot today is people being confused why it took so long for the woman to lodge her complaint. Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular case,  I can say from personal experience that it can take_ decades_ to come to terms with sexual abuse and there could be many reasons why someone may not want to come forward.


Yes. Whatever holes there may be in her case, I don't think it's reasonable to regard the delay as necessarily being one of them. In my experience (40+ years from becomng a victim to making disclosure), it was very clear that those suggesting that such a delay was excessive had absolutely no idea about the practicalities, and that's going to be true in spades where the alleged perpetrator is a celebrity on top of everything else.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 17, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Legions of Dylan fans: "Why was this woman so reluctant to come forward before now? Also, I think she must be a greedy blackmailing liar."



Nope, I'm not saying that is the case.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Aug 17, 2021)

Historical he says she says crimes are difficult to prove either way. Most people will go with whoever they deem to be more credible, for whatever reason, even before facts are gathered.
You only need to search the bin or other threads in here to see where everyone stood regarding the allegations against Savile to see that some will continue to argue their beliefs in the face of growing evidence against them.


----------



## Spanner (Aug 18, 2021)

editor said:


> One thing that I see coming up on social media a lot today is people being confused why it took so long for the woman to lodge her complaint. Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular case,  I can say from personal experience that it can take_ decades_ to come to terms with sexual abuse and there could be many reasons why someone may not want to come forward.


Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man



She had no recourse to legal action for many years, during which there was a significant shift in society toward believing the victims of childhood sexual abuse - during the window in New York's Child Victims Act, more than 9,000 lawsuits were filed, some of them against the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts of America, and Jeffrey Epstein - is it bloody naive to believe these people are telling the truth?









						How the Child Victims Act revealed New York’s dark history of child sexual abuse
					

Victims of sexual abuse are speaking out on how the Child Victims Act, which allows adults to sue for damages, revealed New York’s dark history.




					nypost.com


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man



Plenty of victims can never come to terms with the abuse they suffered. Some never came forward. Some endure a lifetime of depression, mental health issues and some even take their own lives.

Then there are those brave souls who one day just say enough us enough, and they finally speak up ... knowing they will be vilified and disbelieved.

Saying this as a Dylan fan.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


Fuck off. It was a twat like you, mithering on here about how police shouldn't pursue historical cases, that was the spur to my going to the police, 45 years after the fact.

He did 6 years.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


Took me about 30 years and I normally have no problem in speaking my mind.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner is some sort of ex tabloid hack so that particular kind of bullshit probably comes to him quite naturally by now.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Spanner said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


I know people who have never got through their abuse, for you to try and belittle anyone's claim just proves what an odious pathetic thing you are.


----------



## seventh bullet (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man



It's been thirty years for me, and 'coming to terms' only means learning less self-destructive behaviours to cope with the mental trauma which will I will carry for the rest of my days. I might have been dead before my abuser popped his clogs, given the suicide attempts over the years, starting at the age of 19. He was just an ordinary member of the working class though, so no fortune to get my grubby hands on. I really don't know what else to say except fuck you, you piece of shit.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 18, 2021)

A horrible thing  

Glad to see R Kelly is heading to court. If 5% if what he is accused of is true then I hope he spends a lot of time in jail and his assets lost.


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man



Dont do this.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


This has to be one of the most crapulent posts I've ever seen on here. I'm sick of the idea that abuse victims have to fucking qualify their pain. Fuck you.


----------



## RainbowTown (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man



That is a pretty low thing to say. And totally uncalled for.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 18, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


Don’t be such a dick.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Aug 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Plenty of victims can never come to terms with the abuse they suffered. Some never came forward. Some endure a lifetime of depression, mental health issues and some even take their own lives.
> 
> Then there are those brave souls who one day just say enough us enough, and they finally speak up ... knowing they will be vilified and disbelieved.


My mum was in her 90s before she started talking about the headmaster who would have his hands up the girls skirts when they queued at his desk as he read their work.

Such people were untouchable.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 18, 2021)

UrbaneFox said:


> My mum was in her 90s before she started talking about the headmaster who would have his hands up the girls skirts when they queued at his desk as he read their work.
> 
> Such people were untouchable.


And they only became less untouchable (not quite sure about THAT mental image!) very recently.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Aug 18, 2021)

Even creepier: at some point my grandma announced that they were moving house and going live next door to the headmaster.

PS And it was a church school, Details, details.


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 19, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


Spectacularly ignorant post.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2021)

While waiting for the drive by tool to clarify his position, was surprised to see that R Kelly had actually married a 15 year old Aaliyah, when he was her producer. Don't know too much about her, do remember her dying at a young age & apparently her sound is very influential on some of today's artists on the pop scene

R Kelly sex-trafficking trial: manager used bribe to get Aaliyah fake ID


----------



## existentialist (Aug 22, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> While waiting for the drive by tool to clarify his position, was surprised to see that R Kelly had actually married a 15 year old Aaliyah, when he was her producer. Don't know too much about her, do remember her dying at a young age & apparently her sound is very influential on some of today's artists on the pop scene
> 
> R Kelly sex-trafficking trial: manager used bribe to get Aaliyah fake ID


The drive by tool isn't going to clarify his position. That's not what he thinks he's here for.

Sadly, neither will he have fucked off permanently.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2021)

existentialist said:


> The drive by tool isn't going to clarify his position. That's not what he thinks he's here for.
> 
> Sadly, neither will he have fucked off permanently.



It's clear that many Dylan fans will dismiss the allegations. Nobody likes it when their heroes are shown up to be unworthy or vile. Some of the commentary elsewhere is far worse, but pop stars have led a charmed life over the decades - it's not wrong or naive to question their exploits, especially when it comes to ugly stuff like messing with young teens. Dylan, Kelly, whoever.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 22, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> It's clear that many Dylan fans will dismiss the allegations. Nobody likes it when their heroes are shown up to be unworthy or vile. Some of the commentary elsewhere is far worse, but pop stars have led a charmed life over the decades - it's not wrong or naive to question their exploits, especially when it comes to ugly stuff like messing with young teens. Dylan, Kelly, whoever.


I'm not sure our own little hand tool is coming at this from a a Dylan fan perspective. Given his history, it's far more likely to be a bit of half-arsed edgelordery.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2021)

existentialist said:


> I'm not sure our own little hand tool is coming at this from a a Dylan fan perspective. Given his history, it's far more likely to be a bit of half-arsed edgelordery.



Probably the wrong thread for him, then.  Must say, was gutted when the allegations came to light. Had heard a story about him propositioning a journalist years ago - but nothing more ever came from that. But this... who cares if fans are gutted or angry that their god could be a wrong 'un? It's the alleged victim that matters, no matter how long it took for her to come forward.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 3, 2021)

RainbowTown said:


> So really there is no proof. Simple as that. It's finding guilt by proxy and heresay and tenuous supposition. Where there is no actual evidence of it. Anyone can claim that they slept with someone. Whether it be consenting groupies or whoever. Anyone could turn around and say I slept with somebody consensually at the age of 15, 14, 13 whatever. Somebody could say that about any person - anyone on this board, for instance. Anyone. My point is, you said "sexual practices with young girls" (not one girl, but girls) that has been "documented plenty of times." There's just no proof of that, as no other "young girl" or "girls" - not one- has ever come forward. Even now, two years after his death.
> Bowie was certainly sexually promiscious in the 60's, 70's  and 80's- including men. As where lots of rock stars and groups (indeed going back to the 50s). Like you said, it was different times. But there is just no real evidence whatsoever that he had "sexual practices" with "young girls". To me anyway. That's just my take.  Though he most certainly bedded some of the most beautiful and famous women of his era - and even Mick Jagger! Oh, to be a fly on _that _wall!





RainbowTown said:


> That is a pretty low thing to say. And totally uncalled for.



Quite the turnaround.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 3, 2021)

eatmorecheese said:


> This has to be one of the most crapulent posts I've ever seen on here. I'm sick of the idea that abuse victims have to fucking qualify their pain. Fuck you.


Oh, fuck you too. I didn’t say she had to qualify anything. I asked why it took nearly 60 years to report his crime. He’s a fucking singer, not the Godfather.


----------



## BillRiver (Sep 3, 2021)

Meanwhile about those dates, and Bob Dylan's whereabouts:

Bob Dylan movements ‘not inconsistent’ with alleged sex abuse, says lawyer for accuser

"JC’s lawyer, Daniel Isaacs, has now responded to Heylin’s claims. “Looking at the [tour] schedule – it’s not inconsistent with our client’s claims,” he told Page Six. “There are dates that he wasn’t touring for several weeks in April and this will all come out at that appropriate time. The claims were vetted before the case was filed and we did our research. It’s our position that the evidence will establish that he was in New York during the relevant time period.”


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, fuck you too. I didn’t say she had to qualify anything. I asked why it took nearly 60 years to report his crime. He’s a fucking singer, not the Godfather.


Then you fail to understand the psychological prison bind of victims. Not your fault if you don't get it.


----------



## BigMoaner (Sep 3, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Plenty of victims can never come to terms with the abuse they suffered. Some never came forward. Some endure a lifetime of depression, mental health issues and some even take their own lives.
> 
> Then there are those brave souls who one day just say enough us enough, and they finally speak up ... knowing they will be vilified and disbelieved.
> 
> Saying this as a Dylan fan.


I've been obsessed by the man ever since I first heard him 20 years ago. Spot on what your saying


----------



## BigMoaner (Sep 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, come on. 56 years to come to terms with his abuse? She’s lived through all his career all the way through to its twilight before coming forward? Don’t be so bloody naive man


And its attitudes like this that helps to prevdnt people coming forward at any later stage. "oh it's too late now, no one will believe me".


----------



## Spanner (Sep 3, 2021)

eatmorecheese said:


> Then you fail to understand the psychological prison bind of victims. Not your fault if you don't get it.


Oh, I get it.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 3, 2021)

BigMoaner said:


> And its attitudes like this that helps to prevdnt people coming forward at any later stage. "oh it's too late now, no one will believe me".


Is skepticism outlawed these days?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Oh, I get it.


You can lead a horse to a viable excuse...


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Quite the turnaround.





Raheem said:


> You can lead a horse to a viable excuse...


…hang on. You can lead a horse. A horse? Where to? “A viable excuse”? You need to lead your metaphorical horse back to its stable and start again.


----------



## xenon (Sep 4, 2021)

look fuck all this rubbish, is Bob Dylan a nonce or what?


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

BigMoaner said:


> And its attitudes like this that helps to prevdnt people coming forward at any later stage. "oh it's too late now, no one will believe me".


…and it is attitudes like yours which prevent people coming forward when forensic evidence could nail the guilty bastards into a lifetime of purgatory.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

xenon said:


> look fuck all this rubbish, is Bob Dylan a nonce or what?


No, yes, who knows


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> …and it is attitudes like yours which prevent people coming forward when forensic evidence could nail the guilty bastards into a lifetime of purgatory.


Please don’t fall into the trap that my opinion about abuse is misinformed by a lack of abuse. Either mine or my loved ones.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> No, yes, who knows


You fucking weasel.

You've had several weeks to reconsider your ill-judged remarks and this shit is the best you can come up with?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

xenon said:


> look fuck all this rubbish, is Bob Dylan a nonce or what?


No idea but he's definitely a cunt.


----------



## existentialist (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Please don’t fall into the trap that my opinion about abuse is misinformed by a lack of abuse. Either mine or my loved ones.


And suddenly, it plays the "I'm a victim, too!" card.

Bit late to the party with that one, sunshine, and there's you burbling on about how abuse victims should be fronting up while the forensic evidence is still warm. Forgive my scepticism, but...


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> You fucking weasel.
> 
> You've had several weeks to reconsider your ill-judged remarks and this shit is the best you can come up with?


Actually about 10 minutes. I’m not a devotee of this forum


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Actually about 10 minutes. I’m not a devotee of this forum



Fuck off back to the Express, then.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No idea but he's definitely a cunt.


You’re a cunt as well. This stuff doesn’t work so well online.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> You’re a cunt as well. This stuff doesn’t work so well online.



Why bother, then?

You're not part of the community here.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Fuck off back to the Express, then.


Are you that fragile?


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Why bother, then?
> 
> You're not part of the community here.


What are you saying? If you disagree you don’t belong?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> You’re a cunt as well. This stuff doesn’t work so well online.


And?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Are you that fragile?


Ooh, you've got the snark on tonight!

I think the point was more that, given your evident disdain for this forum, you might fit in better with the denizens of the Express than here.

Not so much for your views as for your complete incapability to present an argument and stand behind it with anything more than passive aggressive hostility and evasion.

Anyone would think that you're not really here to engage. Perhaps you're just after the attention?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> What are you saying? If you disagree you don’t belong?



Am saying you sneer at posters here, and offer little but drive by postings and other cowardly cliches.

You'd be better off elsewhere.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

existentialist said:


> Ooh, you've got the snark on tonight!
> 
> I think the point was more that, given your evident disdain for this forum, you might fit in better with the denizens of the Express than here.
> 
> ...


Blah blah … silly insult … blah blah.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Blah blah … silly insult … blah blah.



Engage in the topic or end the derail and get off this thread.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Engage in the topic or end the derail and get off this thread.



I’ve engaged in the topic, but not to your liking.


----------



## tim (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Actually about 10 minutes. I’m not a devotee of this forum


In that case, why don't you fuck off.


----------



## xenon (Sep 4, 2021)

to be fair everyone is here for the attention. Hello, hello is this thing on.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

tim said:


> In that case, why don't you fuck off.


Do I need to swear an oath of allegiance or something? Who the fuck are you to tell me to fuck off from a website by the way, “tim”?


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

existentialist said:


> Ooh, you've got the snark on tonight!
> 
> I think the point was more that, given your evident disdain for this forum, you might fit in better with the denizens of the Express than here.
> 
> ...


Hello,

Despite your eviscerating review of my “performance” in your forum, I am more than capable of presenting an argument.

I’ve been involved in and moderated several forums before, and I understand how people congregate passionately around a single cause.

However, there is always room for a challenging opinion. Otherwise forums become a backslapping echo chamber. Embrace and argue with those who have different opinions.

Best wishes,
Steve


----------



## Humberto (Sep 4, 2021)

Are you Tory?


----------



## Humberto (Sep 4, 2021)

Attention seeking eh? It's a scourge.


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

Humberto said:


> Are you Tory?


Christ no


----------



## keybored (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No idea but he's definitely a cunt.


He sings like a vacuum cleaner.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Hello,
> 
> Despite your eviscerating review of my “performance” in your forum, I am more than capable of presenting an argument.
> 
> ...



Piss off Dan


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

keybored said:


> krtek a houby said:
> 
> 
> > Piss off Dan
> ...


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

I wish I was Dan. Fucking hell, you make the guy out to be some kind of Lymond


----------



## Aladdin (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Spanner said:
> 
> 
> > …and it is attitudes like yours which prevent people coming forward when forensic evidence could nail the guilty bastards into a lifetime of purgatory.
> ...



You're arguing with yourself


----------



## Spanner (Sep 4, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> You're arguing with yourself


I’m not


----------



## Aladdin (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Hello,
> 
> Despite your eviscerating review of my “performance” in your forum, I am more than capable of presenting an argument.
> 
> ...





krtek a houby said:


> Piss off Dan




He's "Stan" now...or "Steve" or summat...


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 4, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> He's "Stan" now...or "Steve" or summat...



He's an arse boil who farts and bubbles through here, once every few weeks, and then comes back to wreak his mild brand of havoc when he needs that buzz again.

You can guarantee he won't dwell on his ugly comment from his last fart session here. Because he knows he was out of order and is trying to divert from his pustule filled post.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 4, 2021)

I very very really call for people to be banned but Spanner needs to be banned from this thread at the very least. Not content with their vile comments they are now purposely acting like a prick on a thread that is too serious for this type of behaviour


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Hello,
> 
> Despite your eviscerating review of my “performance” in your forum, I am more than capable of presenting an argument.
> 
> ...


You're acting like a dick, so you're banned off this thread.
Best wishes, Ed


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Otherwise forums become a backslapping echo chamber. Embrace and argue with those who have different opinions.


Because that's worked so well on Twitter. There are a variety of opinions here including some rw ones but having some uncrossable lines allows constructive debate to happen.


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 4, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> He's "Stan" now...or "Steve" or summat...


You leave me out of it, I'm nice.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 4, 2021)

Thin skinned Drifter cyber edgelords . What a fucking world we live in


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 4, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Thin Skinned Drifter Cyber Edgelords


Saw them around '87 at the Camden Monarch supporting Zodiac Mindwarp & The Love Reaction.


----------



## Aladdin (Sep 4, 2021)

steveo87 said:


> You leave me out of it, I'm nice.


That you are... 🤗


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 12, 2021)

Another legend under srcutiny

Afrika Bambaataa sued for alleged child sexual abuse


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Another legend under srcutiny
> 
> Afrika Bambaataa sued for alleged child sexual abuse



Not the first time this has come up with him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Despite your eviscerating review of my “performance” in your forum, I am more than capable of presenting an argument.


----------

