'It was a different time': excusing/minimising bad behaviour in the past

[Orang Utan]

qf. 'She's 83!'

I've seen this used multiple times in print by writers seeking to downplay appalling behaviour, usually by renowned public figures such as artists and musicians. Is there ever justifiable grounds to say this about immoral, illegal, appalling behaviour such as sexual violence or expounding racist ideas? Has morality really shifted that much from generation to generation and should we be less judgmental and more understanding towards behaviour that we nowadays consider repugnant? I am doubtful and think it's just making excuses for people we are kindly disposed to, ignoring the fact that this behaviour must have been as repugnant then as it now. But I do remember it was only the recent past in which, for example, sexual exploitation of minors by adults was either seen as a subject to be joked about or just not discussed.

This post was prompted by my reading the first couple of pages of the introduction to a biography of Eric Gill - the first to reveal the details of his abuse towards his family - he raped his sister, his daughter and his dog. I had to stop reading it as it was attempting to downplay this abuse as the 'sexual anarchy' of a free spirit. It wasn't even written that long ago - 1989, so I was shocked, but maybe I shouldn't have been.

 

[TopCat]

qf. 'She's 83!'

I've seen this used multiple times in print by writers seeking to downplay appalling behaviour, usually by renowned public figures such as artists and musicians. Is there ever justifiable grounds to say this about immoral, illegal, appalling behaviour such as sexual violence or expounding racist ideas? Has morality really shifted that much from generation to generation and should we be less judgmental and more understanding towards behaviour that we nowadays consider repugnant? I am doubtful and think it's just making excuses for people we are kindly disposed to, ignoring the fact that this behaviour must have been as repugnant then as it now. But I do remember it was only the recent past in which, for example, sexual exploitation of minors by adults was either seen as a subject to be joked about or just not discussed.

This post was prompted by my reading the first couple of pages of the introduction to a biography of Eric Gill - the first to reveal the details of his abuse towards his family - he raped his sister, his daughter and his dog. I had to stop reading it as it was attempting to downplay this abuse as the 'sexual anarchy' of a free spirit. It wasn't even written that long ago - 1989, so I was shocked, but maybe I shouldn't have been.

The downplaying was appalling.

 

[ouirdeaux]

It wasn't even written that long ago - 1989, so I was shocked, but maybe I shouldn't have been.

Well, it was a different time.

 

[8ball]

I think in 1989, raping your sister, daughter and your dog was generally frowned upon.

 

[Sue]

I remember a few years ago when some Tory MP or other was found guilty of sexual assault/harrassment and various commentators were like 'different times'. Except they were referring to the late 90s/early 2000s or whatever -- certainly a time when I was working and that behaviour certainly wasn't acceptable then either.

 

[Pickman's model]

it's only in the 1960s and 1970s that this behaviour was ever considered anything other than appalling, and then only by nonces, paedophiles and their apologists

 

[8ball]

I remember a few years ago when some Tory MP or other was found guilty of sexual assault/harrassment and various commentators were like 'different times'. Except they were referring to the late 90s/early 2000s or whatever -- certainly a time when I was working and that behaviour certainly wasn't acceptable then either.

I wonder how recent it's possible to go with the "different times" defence.
I reckon if anyone is likely to test the boundaries on this it will be Boris Johnson, or maybe Elon Musk.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think in 1989, raping your sister, daughter and your dog was generally frowned upon

frowned upon, yes, but still downplayed

 

[steeplejack]

qf. 'She's 83!'

I've seen this used multiple times in print by writers seeking to downplay appalling behaviour, usually by renowned public figures such as artists and musicians. Is there ever justifiable grounds to say this about immoral, illegal, appalling behaviour such as sexual violence or expounding racist ideas? Has morality really shifted that much from generation to generation and should we be less judgmental and more understanding towards behaviour that we nowadays consider repugnant? I am doubtful and think it's just making excuses for people we are kindly disposed to, ignoring the fact that this behaviour must have been as repugnant then as it now. But I do remember it was only the recent past in which, for example, sexual exploitation of minors by adults was either seen as a subject to be joked about or just not discussed.

This post was prompted by my reading the first couple of pages of the introduction to a biography of Eric Gill - the first to reveal the details of his abuse towards his family - he raped his sister, his daughter and his dog. I had to stop reading it as it was attempting to downplay this abuse as the 'sexual anarchy' of a free spirit. It wasn't even written that long ago - 1989, so I was shocked, but maybe I shouldn't have been.

It's Fiona McCarthy's book and people when it came out were absolutely staggered by the documentation of Gill's crimes.

I certainly don't think she was trying to downplay / justify what he did.

Passages in that book are very difficult to read. Gill was sexually incontinent, basically, and a lifelong abuser.

 

[belboid]

I think in 1989, raping your sister, daughter and your dog was generally frowned upon.

Tho raping your wife was still legal

 

[Orang Utan]

It's Fiona McCarthy's book and people when it came out were absolutely staggered by the documentation of Gill's crimes.

I certainly don't think she was trying to downplay / justify what he did.

Passages in that book are very difficult to read. Gill was sexually incontinent, basically, and a lifelong abuser.

 

[8ball]

Tho raping your wife was still legal

I thought of that at the same time as you, as it happens.
It was about that time it was mentioned in PSSE (or whatever it was called) when I was in school that this wasn't illegal and every one of us in the lesson was shocked and appalled.

Obv we were very young, but I don't recall being at odds with any older people I knew on this.

 

[Orang Utan]

it's only in the 1960s and 1970s that this behaviour was ever considered anything other than appalling, and then only by nonces, paedophiles and their apologists

I was at school in the 80s and remember jokes about jailbait and recall older men picking their girlfriends up from school in their cars. amidst hoots and whistles.

 

[Voley]

That's one hell of an example there OU.

I suppose I do acknowledge that people are a product of the prevailing culture at the time but there are limits. And your example's waaay outside anything conscionable really.

Oddest example I can recall was reading Stephen Fry say "autres temps, autres mœurs" when referring to some pretty brutal punishments that happened to him at public school. I wasn't sure whether I admired his ability to forgive/let it go or whether I wanted him to rail against it.

Sorry. Wishy-washy answer, I know. I'm not sure how I feel about it tbh. It's a good question, ought to be a good thread.

 

[8ball]

I was at school in the 80s and remember jokes about jailbait and recall older men picking their girlfriends up from school in their cars. amidst hoots and whistles.

How much older? I remember my Mum talking about my Dad picking her up from school in his car, but she was 16 and he was 18 (and was a mechanic so could cobble a jalopy together).

What you say sounds a bit different to that, though.

 

[maomao]

They should take the statue off the BBC building. Not all art by paedophiles should be destroyed but art celebrating paedophilia by paedophile certainly should.

 

[8ball]

They should take the statue off the BBC building. Not all art by paedophile should be destroyed but art celebrating paedophilia by paedophile certainly should.

I don't know much about that sculpture, but it doesn't look so great and isn't an important historical document of anything so I agree on that count.

 

[Sue]

I was at school in the 80s and remember jokes about jailbait and recall older men picking their girlfriends up from school in their cars. amidst hoots and whistles.

And the whole Mandy Smith/Bill Wyman stuff.

 

[platinumsage]

It depends. I think it's fine to say "it was a different time" to excuse behaviour if you're debating a proposal to ban the teaching of the writings of Cicero in university because he owned slaves. Showing repeats of Jim'll Fix It on the BBC "because it was in the 80s" or whatever is obviously a different kettle of fish.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Attitudes were definitely different in the past. I was a teenager in the 70s and I remember people laughing about sexual harrassment of young girls, but being disgusted by homosexuality.

 

[story]

View attachment 359793

That’s not saying he was a sexual anarchist, it’s saying it was sexual anarchy. That’s a different thing.

It doesn’t read to me like any kind of justification. To me that reads like saying “even if we accept that some of this might fall within some definition of normal it’s not acceptable”.



I remember the outrage and shock that accompanied the revelations at the time.

 

[pogofish]

I remember that perception of Gill was becoming "uncomfortable" then reassessed and downplayed by the mid 1980s in advance of his abuses becoming more widely known by the end of the decade.

Also there was a very significant change in the way sexual exploitation of children/teenagers was viewed over the decade. There was no one case that turned opinion but over a few years, revulsion at a number of cases/incidents combined to change what were pretty widespread attitudes - incl PIE, the very young page three girls (15/16 IIRC?), the Bulger case, the Gillick Ruling, the "Wild Child" thing in the tabloids (Mandy Smith/Bill Wyman was an offshoot of that) and a number of exceptionally lenient sentences of the "she was asking for it" variety - the "no worse than a collection of cigarette cards" child porn judgement comes to mind.

 

[story]

And the whole Mandy Smith/Bill Wyman stuff.

I was clubbing at that time and about the same age as Mandy was then. There were a lot of us who were way be,ow legal age in the clubs then. Boys and girls, although more girls.

As I remember it, we were aware that Bill Wyman was a wrong ‘un mainly because he’d pursued it through to marriage. There were loads of older bloke younger girl couples then. My 13 year old sister dated a man of 27. My Dad knew about it, met him, he came to the house. I went on some of their dates as chaperone. Our even younger sister was clubbing with us when she was 12 and 13 and blokes would come on to her all the time. It only got weird and dangerous when she was invited to different clubs, like Annabelle’s, by blokes who had cars. That’s when I intervened and went in to fetch her out. She was furious and I got it in the neck from some of our mates for being a moany old git. I was still under age myself.

It feels to me like a very different world. But then, a lot of us were living away from home at 16, working and paying bills and that.

I‘m glad it’s changed. I’m not saying any of it was okay. And I struggle to explain why some of it seemed okay at the time while some of it was obviously wrong at the time. The thresholds have moved.

It’s not different times so much as different cultures.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

If ever a question had the answer “it’s complicated”, this is it.

Attitudes, standards, morals and lines are constantly evolving, hopefully (but not always) for the better, so I think that we do have to allow for that. Quite where and how you define at what point it’s no longer any sort of justification for explaining (not necessarily excusing) a particular individuals behaviour I don’t know, and that’s way before you even get to “is it OK to still read/listen/view person x’s art”…

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That’s not saying he was a sexual anarchist, it’s saying it was sexual anarchy. That’s a different thing.

It doesn’t read to me like any kind of justification. To me that reads like saying “even if we accept that some of this might fall within some definition of normal it’s not acceptable”.

It does read to me as downplaying it tbh. She seems more concerned with the gap between his public piety and his private life than the consequences of and damage caused by that private life. Maybe others read it differently, but to me, she appears to be placing adultery next to child abuse as moral equivalents.

 

[story]

I’ve talked to mates from back then (late 70s onwards) and while we all know it’s wrong from today’s perspective and as parents are much more concerned now than our parents were then, we all also somehow felt differently about things back then. That’s not to say that everything was okay, we diid have thresholds and knew when things were wrong. But there was more sexual autonomy at a younger age back then too. Somehow.

As I say I struggle to explain because I struggle to define what was hall wrong back then.

 

[story]

It does read to me as downplaying it tbh. She seems more concerned with the gap between his public piety and his private life than the consequences of and damage caused by that private life. Maybe others read it differently, but to me, she appears to be placing adultery next to child abuse as moral equivalents.

Maybe I’m wrong but I I assumed there was more in-depth analysis elswhere in the book, and that it would be more da,ning I thought that was the intro.

 

[Sue]

I was clubbing at that time and about the same age as Mandy was then. There were a lot of us who were way be,ow legal age in the clubs then. Boys and girls, although more girls.

As I remember it, we were aware that Bill Wyman was a wrong ‘un mainly because he’d pursued it through to marriage. There were loads of older bloke younger girl couples then. My 13 year old sister dated a man of 27. My Dad knew about it, met him, he came to the house. I went on some of their dates as chaperone. Our even younger sister was clubbing with us when she was 12 and 13 and blokes would come on to her all the time. It only got weird and dangerous when she was invited to different clubs, like Annabelle’s, by blokes who had cars. That’s when I intervened and went in to fetch her out. She was furious and I got it in the neck from some of our mates for being a many old git. I was still under age myself.

It feels to me like a very different world. But then, a lot of us were living away from home at 16, working and paying bills and that.

I‘m glad it’s changed. I’m not saying any of it was okay. And I struggle to explain why some of it seemed okay at the time while some of it was obviously wrong at the time. The thresholds have moved.

It’s not different times so much as different cultures.

But you know stuff like that didn't seem okay to me at the time. We all thought the Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith stuff was gross, as were older blokes coming onto girls in school uniform.

I've just looked it up and I'm about two years younger than Smith.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe I’m wrong but I I assumed there was more in-depth analysis elswhere in the book, and that it would be more da,ning I thought that was the intro.

If I were writing that book, I think I'd struggle to open up with anything other than the systematic sexual abuse of his daughters front and centre.

 

[JimW]

I immediately thought maybe smacking children comes under this, as in it's a bad thing good people might have done in the past where they won't now, but not entirely sure even there.