Bob Dylan Sex Abuse Allegation

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770270#Comment_117770270

Well I don’t doubt that it was common at the time. The dates are wrong here though.

olestoepoke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770306#Comment_117770306

I agree

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770307#Comment_117770307

I haven't read about the dates. What precludes the dates from being possible?

Part of the problem is the sexualized nature of the music industry itself. It attracts a lot of sex pests and even enables them to hide in plain sight without consequence. It also attracts a lot of sexually (and emotionally) immature men.

Another issue is the PR stuff which has established roles for fans, so that the common understanding becomes something like: "This music is sexy. It arouses you. Look at your peers going crazy for x celebrity. Like thousands of others, you would give yourself to this sex god at the drop of a hat. And rightly so. Who wouldn't?"

It's a mess of an industry with a skewed dynamic between musicians and fans and a clean up is long overdue.. At the same time, music cannot be extricated from sexuality entirely (no matter what Taliban-esque types say) but the fans need to do their part too.. by having a more realistic perspective on musicians, away from the PR spin.

Dylan though? One of the last people I would expect to fall into that pit.

tobefrank321

If you asked me what I was doing this day last year I couldn't tell you and I'd have to check emails and texts and the like. None of those existed in the 1960s!

It would be nearly impossible for Dylan to prove where and what he was doing. Possibly if he was on tour, you'd know the dates and locations. But hotel bookings are long gone. And witnesses are probably mostly dead or can't remember.

There is a very good reason for a statute of limitations, to stop people making up stories that can't be proved or disproved.

Definitely giving Dylan the benefit of the doubt on this one. This is not something that happned in the last ten or twenty years as with Weinstein. This is over 50 years in the past.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117769815#Comment_117769815

it was acceptable/blind eye at the time, saw an interview with drew barrymore with norm mcdonald and she was saying she had given up drugs and alcohol at 14 :)

Lillyfae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770208#Comment_117770208

How is it ignorant? He’s always been a private man. That doesn’t mean he’s got something to hide.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770398#Comment_117770398

I will be sickened to the point of doubting my ability to read people, if turns out that Dylan's private nature was not because he is somehow above the fray (which I always imagined it to be), but because he had something terrible to hide.

Lillyfae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770417#Comment_117770417

Agreed. I very much hope this isn’t true but will keep my opinions to myself and leave it to the infinitely more qualified court to ascertain. I’m not going to rush to attack or defend either party at this point, there just isn’t enough information.

Beechwoodspark

I don’t get why people are falling over themselves to almost make Bob Dylan out to be a saint beyond reproach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770318#Comment_117770318

Dylan was in England for most of it, California for some of it. For sure. Claims to have been on the west coast all of April. Which is believable since he did fly out of Seattle. I have a link a few posts back on this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117769368#Comment_117769368

Exactly. It's what like 4 years since the whole MeToo movement for example. I would have thought a genuine victim would have taken strength from that time to make their own accusation and get it into the justice system. It seems a bit ridiculous to be coming out with it 50+ years later. Almost like a punt, she wins, she gets money. She loses, she faces no consequences, but receives huge amounts of victimhood points.

Potatoeman

It will be interesting to see how these things play out in future. Not with a girl this young but older fans. Seems like it will be seen as way too risky for anyone famous now to even be alone with a fan.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770765#Comment_117770765

That's exactly what you're describing. An increase in cases brought forward because acccusers/victims have been encouraged that their cases will be taken seriously. The fact that it's only 4 years since metoo took off is not evidence that this isn't a serious allegation or that it's just someone looking for money or victimhood points.

OMM 0000

I have always assumed the job of musician is something which attracts pedophiles (or more specifically, men attracted to teenage girls), as they get to have sex with girls who don't understand what they're doing.

conorhal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770079#Comment_117770079

Well I'm utterly convinced! After all, 'you have a feeling' is typically good enough for me to thow a man, who just sold his song catalog to Universal for 300 million dollars in December, under the bus!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770296#Comment_117770296

It’s not bias- I took the same approach for Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard at the time- both investigations stank to high heaven and the accusations were ultimately proved as groundless. It’s one accusation against a famous person decades after the alleged incident took place, submitted because there was a legal window of opportunity to do so- sure, let the investigation take its course but my point was I”m not going to start burning my record collection quite yet - so yes I am giving BD the benefit of the doubt at this point in time and presumption of innocence given the information available- what’s wrong with that ?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771562#Comment_117771562

What's wrong with letting someone's popularity influence whether you give them the benefit of the doubt on whether or not they committed a crime? It's not funny that you have to ask that question. I ultimately arrive at the same point as you (don't pretend to know what happened and let them investigate and see how it works out) but i am in no way letting the popularity of anyone involved influence whether or not i afford the accused the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is not granted based on popularity or personal opinion, it's guaranteed in law. Bringing in the popularity or influence of the accused is only introducing bias and muddying the water. For example, if the accuser was a popular and powerful figure and the accused was unpopular, then I would still have to give the exact same presumption of innocence. How would your calculations change based on that scenario?

cnocbui

I don't care if it's true or not. Waiting till both parties are of an age where they are thinking about shopping for coffins is just ridiculous. I have no problems with the groupie thing and no time for past regrets.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117770735#Comment_117770735

I don’t think people are.

simply saying that in his 80 years on the planet, all the people he’ll have met, worked with and had relationships with there has never been anything dodgy come out that I’m aware of.... he has as I’ve said amassed a lot of quite respected females as friends...the likes of Emmylou Harris and Joan Baez. Joan even would consider herself a feminist.

now when an allegation is made it’s 50 years, 5 decades from the alleged crime taking place to the complaint being made. That I find a little weird... 10 years, 15 ok, but 50 years ? 5 0 ?

if someone made an accusation about me that supposedly happened say after a night out 20 years ago after meeting X person in Smith’s pub... I’d have fûck all recollection of who I’d have met in that pub 20 years ago, I’d have fûck all memory of going there, coming back to where and with whom... so I can only imagine asking a man to disprove allegations of events 50 years ago.... would be kinda difficult.. to prove or disprove.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771691#Comment_117771691

Admitting you don't care if it's true or not is probably the honest version of the people who resort to asking why they waited so long to come forward as a way to imply it's not true. I suppose those people don't care whether it's true either. The difference between them and you is they are pretending they care about whether it's true or not and they've concluded it's probably not true due to the time taken to come forward.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771733#Comment_117771733

Whether anyone else has made allegations against him or not is not evidence that he didn't do it in this case.

But on the point of why it took so long to come forward; the potential explanations should be pretty obvious to any unbiased observer. The glaring one is the fact that she was 12 when the alleged events took place. The other glaring one is that he is a very popular, powerful and influential person. It is much more difficult to make an accusation against a popular, powerful and influential person. And the third glaring fact is the Metoo movement which has made people take accusations against powerful people seriously. This isn't an exhaustive list and it doesn't mean the accusations are true, just like the length of time between alleged event and accusation doesn't make it false.

But the argument is infinitely adaptive. You say you'd be ok with up to 15 years (which i suspect is a finger in the air assessment), but I've seen the same argument made against people who make claims in much less than 15 years. Does anyone remember the pages and pages of the same argument wondering why the wan who accused Paddy Jackson took AN ENTIRE DAY to contact the police? For people who want to make the case that the allegations are most likely false, they can always use the length of time taken to make an accusation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771616#Comment_117771616

there are people out there who target famous people as we have seen with the Cliff Richard debacle - and like it or not, we tend to make decisions about famous people in a different way than we might do about our neighbours or friends in these circumstances - personally I think this will likely be a highly unprovable accusation and if the US justice system rolls like it usually does it will be full of mud slinging and witness assassination on both sides - and that’s just what will be in the public newspapers no less the courtroom if it ever reaches that far. So the “truth” is unlikely ever to be told or it will be unrecognisable amid all the other rubbish that will be published around it.

If the accusation was filed in Ireland Bob Dylan’s name wouldn’t be in the papers right now unless or until court proceedings commenced - another reason why we take a more lax approach to these stories when they emerge from America- I’m not disputing that it “could” have happened - but I’m saying that it’s unlikely this will ever go to trial so you can pontificate all you like around legal due process but because of his global status and beyond famous persona most people will make up their minds outside of the courtroom

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117772323#Comment_117772323

Saying i hold to the principle of innocence unless proven guilty isn't pontificating. It's just being fair an unbiased. You seem to think it's fine (or at least normal) to be prejudice towards the accused in this case, because of the fact that the accused is popular, influential and a good artist. Tell me you at least see how wrong that is.

You didn't answer the question about how you would evaluate the accusation differently if the accuser was a popular and influential artist who you liked.

You can make up your mind based on the fact that you like BD or you don't like the accuser or any other factors you want to include or preclude. I'll just admit i don't know what happened and I'll wait for the investigation and ultimate judgement.

FileNotFound

Having no dislike for Bob I have to say to say its wait and see time.

Mind you this will likely be down to him and her given the fact that many of the potential witnesses may be of little use (age, death etc.)

Its always a case of if its true what he did is awful, if its not what she is doing is awful.

Not sure how this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in any way? I can only see it being a lose lose - loss of his reputation and no justice for her (Assuming she is truthful).

I guess we will get to see now if another 20 ladies appear from the woodwork. Whenever its the US I do admittedly listen to lots of these with some skepticism, recent allegations against some have been simple lies from money hungry people (Can't remember which actor was accused only for access logs to sets showing he was never there on the same dates as his accusers claims)

Mind you she may well be 100% honest and accurate, simply looking for some justice.

Fandymo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117769472#Comment_117769472

She would have been 12, unless he regularly fcuked kids i'm sure it would stand out for him.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117772462#Comment_117772462

Yeah but it's like others have pointed out, lots of famous musicians were banging kids and it wasn't a problem, it was banter (Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and Chuck Berry were three examples used earlier in the thread)*. Why would it be so different for BD if it wasn't unusual for those other stars?

Times change and things that were fine in the past are totally unacceptable now. I know i made gay jokes and race jokes that would pretty shameful to think back on now. Isn't it possible that it was totally normal for musicians to take advantage of young wans and years, or decades, later they realised that behaviour wasn't on?

None of this is evidence that he did it or didn't do it. We don't have any evidence to help us make up our minds. If you've made up your mind at this stage (or are heavily leaning one way or the other) then you're relying totally on prejudice.

*Edited to say I don't think it was ever OK. I'm commenting on the fact that it was known at the time and it wasn't any kind of problem for the artists. It should have been a problem for them and nobody should have been having sex with children, but the society at the time didn't seem to make it a problem for those stars. I hope my meaning is clear.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117769577#Comment_117769577

How is there no truth to it? You've absolutely no grounds to state that with such certainty. What makes Bob Dylan so unlikely?

Now I hope it's not true. It might not be. And I really dislike the way the accused is named.

But to state so definitely and confidently that she's lying - why? None of us know.

Also I saw someone use a hashtag #doubtallwomen - how psycho.

mikethecop

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117771285#Comment_117771285

thats some messed up mentality you got there , you just blanket assume that musicians are all peados ?

i used t play the tin whistle when i was 10 who do you think i was trying to groom ? 😏

They didn't say all musicians are paedos though, they said it seems like a career that would appeal to paedos.

I dunno. I think being a successful singer/musician in the 60s/70s was like living in a parallel universe - a haze of gigs and being on the road. Mind altering substances consumed on a continuous basis to deal with the lack of sleep and the lack of energy - or the need for sleep. Crowds of adoring fans, endless parties... and non stop ego feeding. Just being out of it all the time. In environments like that, boundaries blur. Girls and lads who look older wanting to have sex. Not saying it's right but that's how it happens. An "anything goes" kinda situation.