RIP David Bowie

[Zaune]

Would it have been alright if they were sixteen year-old groupies, then? Neglecting to ask a young lady who sought him out of her own volition to produce her driver's license hardly puts him on the same level as Jimmy Saville.

[Terralthra]

Did you read the interview? Bowie had his bodyguard call said underage girl at her mom's house. C'mon.

[Broomstick]

Statutory rape laws exist in part to prevent exploitation of a young person by an older one. These days, the ability to legally give consent or not also enters into it but that wasn't always the case. That's why there were times and places where someone underage could get married with the consent of their parents (who presumably knew the situation and whether or not it was exploitive or otherwise unacceptable) but sex outside of marriage at that age would be statutory rape, even if all parties were consenting.

It was not seen as equally serious to non-statutory rape, particularly if it was consensual, in earlier times. You may or may not agree with that, but having lived back in the 1970's the prevailing attitude was not "oh my god! He raped her!" but more "the asshole manipulated a young girl and she's too young to realize the potential consequences. He took advantage of her."

Contrast the treatment of rock stars fucking under-age groupies - young women who would do things like throw panties on stage and actively pursue their idols for sexual purposes if they could - with what happened to Roman Polanski who drugged and raped a young girl without her consent. Polanski was convicted of rape. Groupie-banging rock stars weren't. Polanski shows that the 1970's did take rape seriously when there was no consent, but likewise the 1970's tended to look the other way if the girl was actively pursuing the man and no one complained after the fact.

[Hillary]

Did you read the interview? Bowie had his bodyguard call said underage girl at her mom's house. C'mon.

According to the interviewee. I think it's very worth saying that.

The girl in question is giving an interview telling of her life as a groupie and how much fun she had. She's certainly not going to underplay the situation and embellishment is not exactly out of the question. I'm not saying this didn't happen, by the way, but you are stating the above as if it is fact, rather than an allegation which seemingly has nothing to corroborate it.

[Zaune]

The girl in question is giving an interview telling of her life as a groupie and how much fun she had.

And that to me is the important bit. If Lori Maddox doesn't think she was raped or exploited, and in fact seems to have had an absolutely wonderful time and regrets nothing, who are we to contradict her?

[Jub]

Hell, given that some nations have ages of consent in the 12-14 range, who are we to say that our age of consent laws are the correct ones?

[Zaune]

That question probably needs its own SLAM thread.

[Jub]

Yeah, I was lurking the last time this came up... I'm not saying anything more than what I've said on this subject.

I'm just going to leave this here.

[Terralthra]

The girl in question is giving an interview telling of her life as a groupie and how much fun she had.

And that to me is the important bit. If Lori Maddox doesn't think she was raped or exploited, and in fact seems to have had an absolutely wonderful time and regrets nothing, who are we to contradict her?

Don't put words in quote tags with my name on it and then change it to words I didn't say. That's incredibly dishonest. You owe me an apology, right now.

Who we are to contradict her are adults with a sober head on our shoulders, as opposed to a fourteen year-old child who's been drinking champagne and smoking hashish. There are reasons we discount the ability of a child to make good decisions: they frequently do not have that ability. As do people who are drunk, as do people who are high.

[Zaune]

Yes, I do. That was an honest mistake while trimming the quote tags and I'm terribly sorry.

[Terralthra]

Accepted, and thank you.

[Zaune]

That unfortunate cock-up aside, I stand by what I said. It's clear from the tone of the article that even with the benefit of hindsight and subsequent life-experience, Lori Maddox is insisting that she was a willing participant and has no regrets. It's her body, and it's her life history; I'm not going to tell her she's remembering it wrong.

[Terralthra]

My concern is far less for the girl, who appears to be fine with what happened, and far more on the mid-20s rock stars who think getting 14 year-olds drunk and high and then having sex with them is totally ok. Like I said, I'm glad that Bowie appears to have grown past that sort of gross behavior, but there are plenty who have not (e.g. R. Kelly).

There are regularly cases of 25-30 year-old female high school teachers who seduce their 15 year-old male students. The students in question almost always say "I don't see what the problem is," and a brigade of rationalizers says "We'd love to be getting laid!" Even if true, that's not the point, and you well know it.

[Hillary]

My concern is far less for the girl, who appears to be fine with what happened, and far more on the mid-20s rock stars who think getting 14 year-olds drunk and high and then having sex with them is totally ok. Like I said, I'm glad that Bowie appears to have grown past that sort of gross behavior, but there are plenty who have not (e.g. R. Kelly).

There are regularly cases of 25-30 year-old female high school teachers who seduce their 15 year-old male students. The students in question almost always say "I don't see what the problem is," and a brigade of rationalizers says "We'd love to be getting laid!" Even if true, that's not the point, and you well know it.

You are still ignoring the fact that, her interview aside, there appears to be no evidence that Bowie did what you are stating as fact that he did.

[Terralthra]

You mean other than multiple feature-length documentaries about how Bowie, Page, and others slept with multiple women between the ages of 14 and 17? Corroborating interviews? Pictures of them hanging out together, and the entirely reasonable conclusion that a rock star renowned for (at the time) his rampant drug use and frank, prolific sexuality was probably having drug-influenced sex with the young women who said that is, in fact, what happened?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Um...the obscurity was his point. He was saying that of people who do know David Bowie, only perhaps one in 100,000 know of his having committed statutory rape with 14-15 year-old groupies.

Ah, I misread his post. I thought he was saying that everyone knows he's an alleged rapist so why are people idolizing him.

As for the reputability....there's an interview with her where she describes what happened. That seems pretty incontrovertible.

Um ... I'm not sure you understand what "incontrovertible" means. Did you even read my post? Since when is one person's say-so considered evidence of anything? Look, I know rape, and especially statutory rape, is a subject with a long and dirty history with victim's being forced to stay silent and where the burden of proof is often shifted the wrong way, but there's nothing reliable or incontrovertible about that interview. Did you even read it? It reads like a humblebrag about the celebrities she's met.

But let's ignore all that for now, because it doesn't matter. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that David Bowie committed statutory rape, and he is certainly part of a demographic and subculture in which that activity was common. Even if I see no reason to believe this specific girl's incredibly questionable and unsubstantiated story, that doesn't mean Bowie didn't do something with an underage girl at some point during that time period. In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't.

But ... so what? I mean, yes, it's a morally bad thing to do, but nobody is saying that Bowie was a saint. People are mourning him because he was a great artist who had an incredible and undeniable impact on pop culture; nobody that I can tell is holding him up as some sort of symbol of moral goodness. I'm not saying that any alleged or proven statutory rape should be swept under the rug, but it's also utterly irrelevant to the thread. If you were writing a documentary about him, then sure, bring it up. But I just don't see the need for such self-congratulatory moral policing in this context.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I am sick of people that come into "RIP so-and-so" threads just to give their contrarian hot-takes on the person who died. Because it's not a moral crusade, it's just a stupid and petty way to get imaginary Internet +1 points. I mean, it happens every single fucking time there's a thread like this, and it's always stupid. It happened in the RIP Leonard Nimoy thread, for fuck's sake (IIRC). I just don't believe for a second it's an issue the people bringing it up actually care about other than just for the sake of being contrarian.

[Terralthra]

As mentioned above, there are pictures of them together, documentaries mentioning it (and the Jimmy Page thing which followed), along with a corroborating interview from Sable Starr confirming the events happened as laid out. Short of David Bowie reincarnating in a glitter-colored lightning bolt and saying it happened, that's about as solid as you're going to get on matters concerning who fucked whom.

[TithonusSyndrome]

I sympathize, because I've had a similar problem with people who resort to unfounded conjecture about the motives of people who disrupt circlejerks about problematic public figures, merely in order to console themselves about their quailing fear of confronting said issues. It may be that their death is the last great spike of publicity that the deceased will ever inspire, and therefore the last ideal opportunity they'll ever offer to raise awareness about the particular issue or issues that they've been mired in, but that pales in significance next to the discomfort of a handful of whiners.

Long story short; if you don't believe I'm speaking in good faith when I say that I'm not trying to be disruptive for it's own sake, fine, but if you want to wallow in conjecture about my motives, you should know that literally anyone can do that just as easily as you and produce the exact same absence of valuable insights.

[Joun_Lord]

But ... so what? I mean, yes, it's a morally bad thing to do, but nobody is saying that Bowie was a saint.

The problem is there will be people who try to make someone who is dead a saint. Try to bury the bad and only remember the good.

People did the same thing when Steve Jobs was uninstalled (and really before his death but thats worthy of its own rant). Steve Jobs was not a nice person, some would have called him a piece of greedy shit (namely me). But people white washed his legacy, called him a visionary, even a saint. Micheal Jackson, when he exited stage left for the final time people seemed to forget about the massive amounts of child abuse allegations. They remembered his artistry, his contributions to music while ignoring the child abuse or the fact he turned white.

If we are to remember someone, we need to remember ALL of them, not just the good. These people are not gods or larger then life characters they were people with all the human failings that come inherent to this existence right alongside jiggly butts and knee caps. We need to remember their failings and how they moved past it or didn't to learn from it.

Bowie fucked up but from what people are saying tried to make up for it later in life. That frankly is far more impressive and noteworthy then being a perfect angel. Steve Jobs being a total cunt makes him more interesting then if he was the saint people said he was. Micheal Jackson seeing the side of fame so scary it turned him white and into a alleged child diddler can teach us about the perils of child stardom and fame in general.

The reason people might bring it up in threads or shit like this here thing with the words and the punctuation is because by their very nature they tend to be circle jerks that gloss over or ignore the crimes or failings of those who they be spanking it to in a circular arrangement. Its understandable that its a bit upsetting for some to hear about the bad of a icon but on the other shoe its upsetting, especially for victims of similar things, to hear (well read in this case or hearing if they got like a text to speech type deal, I really need to look into a speech to text program as my typing is akin to monkeys flinging feces at a keyboard) people deifying who did some pretty turrible acts.

And considering the person is kaput, kicked the bucket, flame went out, took a dirt name, other phrases meaning death, memorials to them might be the last time someone can really get out the knowledge they dun goofed. I mean just look at this thread for proof. I didn't know David Bowie did some underage sexual shenanigans and its seems like alot of people, including fans of him, never knew about his transgressions. Now one might consider that pissing on his grave or something but clearly others just see it as setting the record straight.

[Ralin]

Micheal Jackson seeing the side of fame so scary it turned him white and into a alleged child diddler can teach us about the perils of child stardom and fame in general.

You know the man actually did have a medical condition that made his skin turn white, right?

[Joun_Lord]

Micheal Jackson seeing the side of fame so scary it turned him white and into a alleged child diddler can teach us about the perils of child stardom and fame in general.

You know the man actually did have a medical condition that made his skin turn white, right?

Supposedly, vitaligo or something like that. Though that was mostly a joke stolen.......I mean borrowed from Ghostbusters.

[Lord Revan]

Micheal Jackson seeing the side of fame so scary it turned him white and into a alleged child diddler can teach us about the perils of child stardom and fame in general.

You know the man actually did have a medical condition that made his skin turn white, right?

Supposedly, vitaligo or something like that. Though that was mostly a joke stolen.......I mean borrowed from Ghostbusters.

no that's real condition, whether mr Jackson had it I dunno.

[Broomstick]

You know the man actually did have a medical condition that made his skin turn white, right?

Supposedly, vitaligo or something like that. Though that was mostly a joke stolen.......I mean borrowed from Ghostbusters.

no that's real condition, whether mr Jackson had it I dunno.

Aside from documentary evidence in many photos, it was one of the findings on autopsy. Mr. Jackson did, in fact, have vitiligo.

[Ralin]

Aside from documentary evidence in many photos, it was one of the findings on autopsy. Mr. Jackson did, in fact, have vitiligo.

Eyup. If I remember right he probably did have skin whitening procedures done, but that would have been to even the bleaching out. Which...is pretty understandable.