Thora
Differently Ethical
In the interview she names a date when she was 14.
Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls
- Thread starter LiamO
- Start date
she says she met him when she was 14, on the spiders from mars tour, they had sex several months later
Thora
Differently Ethical
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Differently Ethical
"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
Nearly as bad as Badgers
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.
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
Differently Ethical
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.
Looks like that tour ran from May to July 1973. So she was 14 and a half.
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
Lawyer's fees, beetroot and music
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.
"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.
Last edited:
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?
Last edited:
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
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.
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
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I broadly agree, but age can play a part in the power dynamic, especially when dealing with teenagers.
I'm afraid it may be common that those who react most violently are those with most to hide
Fair enough, but that contradicts what she says earlier in the interview and I'm still inclined to take her word for it
trashpony
Hag
Thank you. I've been really struggling to articulate it but this is exactly how I feel.
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
Differently Ethical
She's saying two different things, so I guess you'll just have to choose the one you like best.
Rebelda
Nearly as bad as Badgers
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
Last edited:
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Or the younger woman decided to talk her story up to make more money. Both are perfectly plausible.
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
There's no future in England's dreaming
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.
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.
Last edited:
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"
Last edited:
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
Nearly as bad as Badgers
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.
Last edited:
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
Tired and unemotional
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
Similar threads
