Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The perks of being a rock star don't exist anymore

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Pa8301
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Pa8301


    Lillyfae wrote: »
    Yes but it wasn't clear to me listening to Matt Cooper's interview with the New York Times journalist yesterday that he was aware of her age. She insisted that she was 19/20 numerous times iirc. While I believe that a criminal conviction can be pursued on the basis of this, I don't think it's as simple as has been made out.

    Definitely needs context of the time. A 20 year old rock start "grooming" a 16 year old groupie in the 70s doesn't really wash with me. These girls were already damaged in a lot of cases, socio economics probably had more to do with it.

    The vibe I got from reading the NY Times article was that deep down he knew she was underage. He was kinda trying to get her to convince him she wasn't. His R Kelly quip betrays him and shows that he knew he was on very dangerous ground imo.


  • Options
    #93
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Even watching old episodes of ‘Friends’, I have to think that a lot of the jokes about homosexuality wouldn’t make the cut now. It’s a shame really. I fear we are entering a joyless age. Depending on how the subject matter is handled, anything and anyone should be fair game for humour.

    Yeah but no. There was a time when people were fair game because of what they were. Now it's changed to who they are. So there used to be jokes about gay people just for being gay. Not jokes have switched more to attitudes so you're more likely to hear a comedian joke about homophobes.
    And even jokes about gay people have become a bit more flattering. They might joke about gay people being stylish rather than about them being perverted.


  • Options
    #94
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Some of these groupies were 13, 14. Lorri Maddox very clearly looked her age. I agree, many of them were 'pre- groomed' before they got within an asses roar of back stage( Maddox was a teen model and if you saw some of the hyper sexualised shots she posed for in fashion shoots your eyes would pop out of your head. She was very cleary a little girl) but there was definitely an attitude towards them that they were "up for it" girls and therefore alright to use. In most cases their parents didn't give a sh1t where they were and what they were doing. In others ( such as Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith) the relationship was actively encouraged by the parents.


  • Options
    #95
    Lillyfae
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    Pa8301 wrote: »
    The vibe I got from reading the NY Times article was that deep down he knew she was underage. He was kinda trying to get her to convince him she wasn't. His R Kelly quip betrays him and shows that he knew he was on very dangerous ground imo.

    No that's the vibe they're basing the story on, the New York Times that is. All of these newspaper-broken revelations put whatever spin they want on these stories because they have a bottom line, in today's climate Ryan as the victim of a scam won't sell a newspaper. I'm not saying he's a saint, far from, but I really think that should be left up to the law and not Mandy Moore's new manager, or Twitter, or me for that matter.


  • Options
    #96
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Lillyfae wrote: »
    Yes but it wasn't clear to me listening to Matt Cooper's interview with the New York Times journalist yesterday that he was aware of her age. She insisted that she was 19/20 numerous times iirc. While I believe that a criminal conviction can be pursued on the basis of this, I don't think it's as simple as has been made out.

    Definitely needs context of the time. A 20 year old rock start "grooming" a 16 year old groupie in the 70s doesn't really wash with me. These girls were already damaged in a lot of cases, socio economics probably had more to do with it.

    The "it was a different time" only works to a certain extent. Whereas I may look back at a rock star sleeping with a 17 year old groupie and think that it was part of the time, on the other end of the scale there's Jimmy Saville.

    And even if the girls were "damaged" that makes it kinda worse. It means they were preying on girls who were more vulnerable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Lillyfae
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    Grayson wrote: »
    The "it was a different time" only works to a certain extent. Whereas I may look back at a rock star sleeping with a 17 year old groupie and think that it was part of the time, on the other end of the scale there's Jimmy Saville.

    Yes, and I presented a scenario- Jimmy Saville was depraved. A couple of teenagers with 3 years between them? Not convinced.


  • Options
    #98
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Grayson wrote: »
    Whereas I may look back at a rock star sleeping with a 17 year old groupie and think that it was part of the time, on the other end of the scale there's Jimmy Saville.

    There's no "scale" there. A 17-year-old is over the age of consent in most countries, including Ireland, while Jimmy Savile allegedly abused children as young as 8.


  • Options
    #99
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Emersyn Quick Sportscaster wrote: »
    There's no "scale" there. A 17-year-old is over the age of consent in most countries, including Ireland, while Jimmy Savile allegedly abused children as young as 8.

    That's why I gave him as an example and used the phrase scale. they are at different extremes. I'm not saying they are the same or equivalent.


  • Options
    #100
    Lillyfae
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's why I gave him as an example and used the phrase scale. they are at different extremes. I'm not saying they are the same or equivalent.

    They're not on the same scale.

    Scenario 1: two "consenting" teenagers
    Scenario 2: person in a position of absolute power forcing the most vulnerable people to do things CATEGORICALLY against their will


  • Options
    #101
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's why I gave him as an example and used the phrase scale. they are at different extremes. I'm not saying they are the same or equivalent.

    Saying that a rock star having sex with a consenting 17-year-old is at the "other end of the scale" from Jimmy Savile sexually abusing an 8-year-old suggests you believe there's some kind of pedophiliac "scale" that extends from Jimmy Savile at one extreme to the rock star at the other extreme.

    Completely wrong. There is no "scale" or no comparison between those two scenarios at all. They have nothing in common. A 17-year-old is assumed by law to be sexually mature and capable of giving consent, while an 8-year-old obviously is not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    FTA69 wrote: »
    I remember raising this sort of stuff when Bowie died and getting barred off the page and a ton of abuse off a load of people. This sort of noncing was rife and there's no sense of dismissing it just because you happen to like people's music. At the very least the behaviour of Bowie and Paige etc was highly inappropriate and weird.

    There is no evidence for the Bowie claim, no photographs of him with her, and she has given completely contradictory accounts about her relationship with him. So yeah, when the most beloved British rockstar of the 1970s died unexpectedly, people who wanted to tarnish his memory with uncorroborated allegations were told where to go.

    Page is a different story altogether.


  • Options
    #103
    Epic Eir Epic
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭Epic Eir Epic


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    There is no evidence for the Bowie claim, no photographs of him with her, and she has given completely contradictory accounts about her relationship with him. So yeah, when the most beloved British rockstar of the 1970s died unexpectedly, people who wanted to tarnish his memory with uncorroborated allegations were told where to go.

    Page is a different story altogether.
    But then again Bowie was quoted of saying something like "I'm tri-sexual... I'd try anything".


  • Options
    #104
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Lillyfae wrote: »
    They're not on the same scale.

    Scenario 1: two "consenting" teenagers
    Scenario 2: person in a position of absolute power forcing the most vulnerable people to do things CATEGORICALLY against their will

    Exactly, they are at the opposite ends of the scale. I don't know why you can't understand that the word opposite means.

    It's both celebs with teenagers, and it's the different ends of that scale. One is consensual. One isn't. They're opposite. They're different.

    I'd suggest you look up the words opposite and different. You'd see that both are used to signify why things are not the same.


  • Options
    #105
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Grayson wrote: »
    I'd suggest you look up the words opposite and different. You'd see that both are used to signify why things are not the same.

    I don't think you understand what "opposite ends of the scale" means. It doesn't just mean "opposite" or "different"; it means that they're different but also have something in common. E.g., a CEO could be at one end of the scale and a canteen worker at the other, but they're both still employees of the company, with positions within that company representing points on the scale.

    A "teenager" could describe someone from the day of her 13th birthday to the day before her 20th birthday. A 13-year-old is a child, but an almost-20-year-old is a grown woman who is legally an adult and can vote, drive, drink, and consent to sex with whomever she fancies. Comparing the two is meaningless.

    What you're insinuating here, without quite admitting it, is that someone who has sex with an older teenager (as in 17-19) is secretly harboring a desire to sleep with younger and younger teenagers on the "scale." Which, frankly, is nonsense.


  • Options
    #106
    Lillyfae
    Registered Users Posts: 1,806 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    Grayson wrote: »
    Exactly, they are at the opposite ends of the scale. I don't know why you can't understand that the word opposite means.

    It's both celebs with teenagers, and it's the different ends of that scale. One is consensual. One isn't. They're opposite. They're different.

    I'd suggest you look up the words opposite and different. You'd see that both are used to signify why things are not the same.

    Just so I have this clear, you're saying that rape and consensual sex are on the same scale because they both involve penetration? Different things (and different ends of a scale) are not opposite. They are the same unit- sex and rape cannot be classed similarly, especially when taking into account consenting adults vs vulnerable children/ otherwise


  • Options
    #107
    Blush Proof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Blush Proof


    It's good that the MeToo movement is encouraging such women to get all this off their chest. The only problem is that in doing so, they kind of make fools out of themselves.

    I mean, lets say if George Clooney split from his wife, would you expect him to go on a talk show and complain about something Amal used to say that irritated him. No you wouldn't, he has to be an adult and take responsibility for marrying such a person, and sort the issue out with that person. He should not be encouraged to go on air on multiple occasions giving out about how Amal was destructive because she used to drink too much and spend the whole day in bed.


Advertisement