Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls

[andysays]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.