Pop and Rock Stars... and underage girls

[Rebelda]

That's sort of what I was getting at when I made this post

No, you really weren't. That post was about the subjectivity of appearance and how an adult might use the fact that he didn't know the age of the child to defend him (or her) self. You claim the pics of Maddox look more mature than her real age, whereas I think she looks very young indeed. So it is subjective yes, but that wasn't my point at all.

What I was getting at was the subjectivity of how an underage girl might feel about consent. I was considering the agency of those girls, as I felt it was an aspect being left out of this discussion. I'm not really interested in the nuances of whether an adult knows that someone he is having sex with is underage. It's his business to know. Rich white men have plenty of agency.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The law is absolutely there to deal with "...a 14 or 15 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17 yr old...". The majority of USI (unlawful sexual intercourse) convictions are for such relationships, rather than for more obviously predatory relationships.

Didn't know that about the US, but that's not true here. The US tends to be very black and white about rules.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Let's see who sticks up for little Cliffy.

He doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. He has Satan doing that.

 

[cesare]

yes, he was getting there. But he still wasn't there then.

Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Didn't know that about the US, but that's not true here. The US tends to be very black and white about rules.

I'm talking about the Home Office crime stats. There aren't many convictions, and most of them are for unlawful sex in relationships where there's one or two years between parties.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.

radio 1 you mean? in the 1970s?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Or is it just that boys' fanaticism is not played out in a sexual way?

I dunno about that. I knew a couple of younger male colleagues in the '80s who were both out to seduce Morrissey if they could.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes I remember having some unsavoury thoughts about Mark Knopfler

Me too.
Unsavoury for Knopfler, that is, as most of the thoughts were about ripping out his vocal chords.

 

[Pickman's model]

He doesn't need anyone to stick up for him. He has Satan doing that.

even satan wants nothing to do with cliffy. i suppose he'll have to make do with 8den's dubious support.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm talking about the Home Office crime stats. There aren't many convictions, and most of them are for unlawful sex in relationships where there's one or two years between parties.

There are guidelines regarding prosecution:

In deciding whether or not to prosecute, prosecutors should have careful regard to the factors below. The weight to be attached to a particular factor will vary depending on the circumstances of each case. The factors are:

• The age and understanding of the offender. This may include whether the offender has been subjected to any exploitation, coercion, threat, deception, grooming or manipulation by another which has led him or her to commit the offence;
• The relevant ages and levels of maturity of the parties, i.e. the same or no significant disparity in age;
• Whether the complainant entered into sexual activity willingly, i.e. did the complainant understand the nature of his or her actions and that she/he was able to communicate his or her willingness freely;
• Parity between the parties in regard to sexual, physical, emotional and educational development;
• The relationship between the parties, its nature and duration and whether this represents a genuine transitory phase of adolescent development;
• Whether there is any element of exploitation, coercion, threat, deception, grooming, seduction, manipulation or breach of trust in the relationship;
• Whether the child under 13 freely consented (even though in law this is not a defence) or a genuine mistake as to her/ his age was in fact made;
• The nature of the activity e.g. penetrative or non-penetrative activity;
• The sexual and emotional maturity of the parties and any emotional or physical effects resulting from the conduct; and
• The likely impact of any prosecution on the parties.

from here

However, I admit I hadn't realised how inflexibly the law is set up here - ie technically, two 15-year-olds having sex are breaking the law, which is kind of absurd.

We still have a way to go regarding the law on this.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are guidelines regarding prosecution:



from here

However, I admit I hadn't realised how inflexibly the law is set up here - ie technically, two 15-year-olds having sex are breaking the law, which is kind of absurd.

We still have a way to go regarding the law on this.

tbh when i was a teenager we all knew that technically the law was being broken all the time. i don't see why it's news.

 

[tendril]

No, you really weren't. That post was about the subjectivity of appearance and how an adult might use the fact that he didn't know the age of the child to defend him (or her) self. You claim the pics of Maddox look more mature than her real age, whereas I think she looks very young indeed. So it is subjective yes, but that wasn't my point at all.

What I was getting at was the subjectivity of how an underage girl might feel about consent. I was considering the agency of those girls, as I felt it was an aspect being left out of this discussion. I'm not really interested in the nuances of whether an adult knows that someone he is having sex with is underage. It's his business to know. Rich white men have plenty of agency.

Ah, yes, sorry. My bad, misread your post.

 

[cesare]

radio 1 you mean? in the 1970s?

Yep. Pretty sure it was Radio 1 - have I misremembered?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbh when i was a teenager we all knew that technically the law was being broken all the time. i don't see why it's news.

You were a teenager quite a while ago. The law has been updated since then.

but well done for being so great.

 

[Cid]

Well Starman was being played constantly on Radio 1 - we were on holiday in Cornwall at the time and my little brother at age 7 knew all the words and sang it constantly Probably those childhood memories are for the RIP thread but he was very much *famous* by then.

UK/US two very different markets in music terms though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

cliff richard is worse than satan as satan doesn't pretend to be a christian and was never a mate of mary whitehouse's.

So what you're saying is that Satan is Cliff's bitch, rather than Cliff being Satan's bitch?

 

[cesare]

UK/US two very different markets in music terms though.

Aye, I don't really know what the US effect was tbf. Someone will probably google it.

 

[Cid]

Cliff is a manifestation of the old gods, I mean ffs look at his name and think about all that it implies.

 

[laptop]

All that research on whether Bowie was famous on that day...

Doesn't Lori say in the much-linked book "That was the day he became famous"?

To me that seemed very sad. Was she on a girl-trainspottery mission to "collect" the famous? Sad, because it reeked of a consolation for screwing loads of guys who never made the grade...

 

[ViolentPanda]

There are guidelines regarding prosecution:



from here

Unfortunately, the guidelines aren't particularly flexible, or at least aren't interpreted as such by the courts.

However, I admit I hadn't realised how inflexibly the law is set up here - ie technically, two 15-year-olds having sex are breaking the law, which is kind of absurd.

We still have a way to go regarding the law on this.

We do with most juvenile law. It's a clusterfuck.

 

[Pickman's model]

You were a teenager quite a while ago. The law has been updated since then.

but well done for being so great.

i'm sorry you feel so inferior.

 

[Cid]

Aye, I don't really know what the US effect was tbf. Someone will probably google it.

Space Oddity at 15 in 1973, before that 71 (the Jean Genie), 65 (Starman) in 1972. I think it reflects what belboid was saying, his career (at least stateside) really took off as that tour (his first solo tour) progressed. And, seemingly, especially after his two LA (well, Long Beach) dates - March 10/12, then the 15 spot is April 7th.

e2a: I say took off, he doesn't feature that much in the US charts. At least not in the Billboard top 100.

 

[Pickman's model]

Cliff is a manifestation of the old gods, I mean ffs look at his name and think about all that it implies.

 

[bimble]

Does anyone else remember Just17 magazine ? Aimed I think at girls aged around 14 or so.. it had huge glossy pullout posters of things like John Bon Jovi topless, almost lifesized, in a pair of tight leather trousers. I don't think boy's mags with similar centrefolds followed for a few years at least.

 

[cesare]

Does anyone else remember Just17 magazine ? Aimed I think at girls aged around 14 or so.. it had huge glossy pullout posters of things like John Bon Jovi topless, almost lifesized, in a pair of tight leather trousers. I don't think boy's mags with similar centrefolds followed for a few years at least.

It was Tammy and Jackie - and Disco45! - for me in the 70s, I think Just17 was later.

 

[Pickman's model]

It was Tammy and Jackie - and Disco45! - for me in the 70s, I think Just17 was later.

i suppose the magazine db was perusing in the early 70s was below17

 

[Idris2002]

I suppose after he split from Cash the legit roles dried up.

 

[Cid]

Just 17 was 1983-1997 (or 2004, but limited), I remember it. Er... as a thing that girls read of course. I think that must have been when I was at primary school (went to boys schools from 11 on and my sister was into football and stuff, then punk so eschewed such things) which is a little disturbing. Possibly, not knowing the content.

e2a: actually 11-13 I went to a semi-mixed school, so could have been then.

 

[trashpony]

In the 70s, we read Jackie magazine and Mates - see below. The cover features Woody from the Bay City Rollers who was 19 in this photo. The magazine was aimed at school girls. Basically, the media very much encouraged girls under the age of consent to think it was absolutely fine to be in relationships (and have sex) with adults.

I don't think that would happen today.

 

[Pickman's model]

In the 70s, we read Jackie magazine and Mates - see below. The cover features Woody from the Bay City Rollers who was 19 in this photo. The magazine was aimed at school girls. Basically, the media very much encouraged girls under the age of consent to think it was absolutely fine to be in relationships (and have sex) with adults.

I don't think that would happen today.

slik of course midge ure's band before he joined the ex-sex pistol glen matlock in the rich kids