Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls

[eoin_k]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ignore men fucking kids?

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

 

[Lord Camomile]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Plumdaff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.