Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls

[bimble]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

While I agree with your second sentence, your first comes across as rather patronising.

It would do given its nature.

 

[Thora]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I wasn't quite sure where #frogwomen was going with her post and was hoping to draw a little more comment.

@ frogwoman -- @ not #

 

[laptop]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.