>headline accuses Bowie of sexual abuse >actual article is about the author whining about her grandpa diddling her mom >doesn't even go into the accusations made agains Bowie, just her talking about her family problems
People talk about this controversial stuff when celebrities die, because it gives them that edgy cred. They could've bitched about it literally any time before, but when they bitch about it on his death, it's because they are just "so brave for speaking truth to power when no one else dared to".
>>61682818 lol that's what I noticed, too. It's not that her personal story isn't worth writing about, but she should either write an article about that alone without Bowie's name or she should've spent more time writing about Bowie in the article so her story didn't make up most of the article. The way the piece looks now is like she's just attaching Bowie's name to get clicks, which she probably is, of course.
>>61682906 Nah don't. If your friend is what they sound like, they probably love to argue so they can prove how sophisticated and socially conscious they are. Just avoid them. Better yet, just cut them off as a friend. Do what I do and have no friends at all.
>>61682870 It was okay to do tons of shit back in the day. Your ancestors were likely rapists. Some ancestor of yours probably didn't want women to vote. Do you want to get angry and whine about every terrible thing in the distant past ever? Whining that leads to literally no resolution or action? It's, practically speaking, a waste of time and emotion. What matters is now, and how we can better today's society, not what literally everyone who's dead has done, that would take literally forever to reflect upon.
>When I read the news this morning, I asked my editor at another feminist publication how she felt about exploring the nuance—the other side of Bowie that has been lacking from the media coverage. She told me to wait awhile and let the mourners mourn. His fans are often members of marginalized communities, and they may be triggered by his death.
Why must every single fucking thing be filtered through this lens of "marginalization" and "triggering"? How empty and miserable is your life if everything and everyone is judged through that filter?
>>61683050 Ages of consent vary so wildly from place to place that holding any of them as the gold standard ends up being ridiculous.
The long and short of it is this: He shouldn't have done it. He did anyway, and nobody minded. But you probably shouldn't live by that example because he was David Bowie the Rock Star from Mars and you're not. End of story.
>>61683094 >The long and short of it is this: He shouldn't have done it. He did anyway, and nobody minded. But you probably shouldn't live by that example because he was David Bowie the Rock Star from Mars and you're not. End of story.
>>61683080 15 is the age of consent in many countries and 16 is probably the most common in western countries. 18 is just retarded but it's no wonder in a country where creationism is taught in schools.
>>61683080 >there is a switch in your brain that flips the instant you turn 18 that makes you capable of acting independently Not to mention the woman in question has said multiple times that she doesn't regret it.
>>61683098 Lets have people follow around everyone under the age of 18 and make decisions for them because they're incapable of doing it themselves.
>>61683112 I actually think 16 is pretty common in the US too. It depends on the state I think.
>>61683121 >Lets have people follow around everyone under the age of 18 and make decisions for them because they're incapable of doing it themselves. Yeah, this is called parenting. Teenagers are naive as fuck generally. I'm sure the adults in this thread advocating for them to have consent couldn't stand to be around a group of them for more than an hour.
>>61683098 Those are ridiculous analogies and only serve to hurt your argument. Look, by 18 everyone is expected to have an acceptable grip on reality and enough judgement to make decisions such as consent. Does that mean everybody automatically "gets it" on their 18th birthday? No, of course not. People mature and grow at different ages, some people (mostly girls) mature faster than others. It's a case by case basis, some people are more mentally equipped to handle sex than others. But, according to the state, even though a girl says yes, she's actually saying no. If anything, it's more dependent on the older person's age than the younger person's.
>>61683273 >But, according to the state, even though a girl says yes, she's actually saying no Honestly fuck the weirdos who have a plethora of women their own age at their disposal but go after 15 year old girls. Maybe a range of 5 years in age difference is acceptable but most men fucking under aged girls have perverted, manipulative intentions.
>>61683012 >At the end of the day, Bowie did pursue and have sex with a teenager. Regardless of whether or not she was into it (she was and says she had no regrets about it), it's still creepy and illegal. While I agree it was a tad seedy, I doubt he knew she was that young.
My grandparents had a big gap in age difference and all was well with that(Grandad was 22 and Grangran was 15 for there marriage.)
Why is this such an issue now and not many years ago? And what advantage do you gain from attacking societal norms from several decades ago? I do not understand what all the hooping and hollering is about.
>>61683609 When I turned 16 in 2010 my grandma sent me a birthday card that said "When I was your age, I was getting married! LOL!" People in this country have forgotten about how normal that was before the prudery of the 80s and 90s
>>61683697 The impact of modernism (which pretty much kickstarted in the late seventies following the restructuring of industrializtion from mom and pop stores to big dominating organizations) changed alot of values that society holds. However, I do think the age of consent stuff is not as easy as a black and white "18 and over" affair, especially when viewing the seventies from a contemporary social point of view.
One of the most dominating effects of modernism is all of us being viewed as a "statistic", and I think age plays into that as well.
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie She was 15, it doesn't make it okay, but it's not crazy to think that she lied about her age or Bowie thought she was one year older, given that the age of consent is 16 in a lot of places. It's a shitty thing to do, but I don't think his legacy should be thrown away because of it.
There's the already expressed cynical view that they are simply contrarian or "edgy" in order to garner attention
Then there's also the possibility that these people are actually "triggered" or much more realistically mildly disturbed by the public reaction of perceived overwhelming emotion towards his passing in light of events they've decided are unforgivable and have decided to express what they believe to be a sincere societal concern
I've also seen several people use the viewpoint as a troll
In any case I think it's at best misguided and at worst entirely asinine
>>61683844 As far as the media go it's usually to avoid litigation Same thing with Jimmy Savile - there were rumours for years before he died but it was only after he died that news stations and papers could publish any of it
>>61684268 >13 years old >child I admit, it's still very young, but it's usually the time girls start discovering their sexuality. Assuming it actually went down, the girl in question had nothing but praise for Bowie and he didn't force himself upon her. If it happened, it was just two people making a choice.
>b-but statuatory rape Ah yes, the puritanical idea that everyone under the age of 18 is considered a child. Nobody with a brain cares.
>tfw SJWs use his death as an excuse to try and tear him down with muh feelings >tfw SJWs make it all about themselves at the same time >tfw Bowie calls them flashes in the pan and reminds them who the great I am is bowie confirmed red-pilled, bowie confirmed GOAT
>>61684346 >I admit, it's still very young, but it's usually the time girls start discovering their sexuality. the problem isnt that children are exploring their sexuality, but that fully grown adults that know that having sex with a child is wrong, but still do it.
>>b-but statuatory rape i dont necessarily believe its rape, but its still morally dubious and a grey area legally at least.
>Ah yes, the puritanical idea that everyone under the age of 18 is considered a child. Nobody with a brain cares. under 18 is a child whether you want to acknowledge it or not. the brain is still developing and children make retarded decisions without considering negative outcomes.
>>61684561 Why? You don't have the introspection to figure that maybe you are just repeating what has gone on over and over again? This one just happens to be worse, you just have happened to be right this one time even though other older people have been wrong other times?
>>61683112 >where creationism is taught in schools. How about you visit the continent before making these assumptions? I was schooled there for nearly 20 years and not once was creationalism taught in anything other than a historical context that pertained to the topic at hand.
And, for the record, it's not 18 country wide. Some states vary.
>>61684558 >child 13 is usually the time when girls have their first period and get interested in boys. Young? Without a question, but not really children anymore.
>its still morally dubious and a grey area legally at least That I agree. Personally, I would never make such a choice.
>under 18 is a child So you're saying on the morning of everybody's 18th birthday a switch is flipped that magically turns a drooling kid into an adult capable of making conscious decisions? Come on, anon.
>>61684625 I'd welcome a world in which people decide to hate others for cogent reasons instead of "Oh boy I'm older than these people they must be dumb because I'm automatically smart for being older."
>>61684717 Skipping right to the insults, I love it!
But seriously, maybe you should take your own advice and start to think a little, even if it hurts. You come across as someone in your late teens / early twens who discovered something most people were already aware of. >What's that, each generation dislikes the generation that follows?! MOM, CAN'T COME DOWN FOR DINNER, I'M SEEING A PATTERN HERE! But it's alright, you're still young and therefore have the potential to get smarter eventually.
Get a grip. These girls grew up in Hollywood and would literally stalk up and coming musicians from venue to venue. They all knew exactly what they were doing and they wanted it, and if the tales are to be believed it sounds like they had an absolute fucking blast.
Imagine an era where you could hit up the town, walk into a club and see your idol casually reclining on a sofa with a few drinks, and it's the most normal thing in the world to just walk up to them, start a conversation, get absolutely blasted together and spend the night in a hotel in a furor of cocaine fuelled lust.
That being said, I have my doubts about Lori's account. According to her she lost her virginity to David and was back and forth with him for over 10 years, and not a single photograph of them together exists, Lori Maddox being the girl that was photographed virtually every night at some club or other hanging off the arm of some misc. artist.
If Lori did lose her virginity to David when she was 15, well she was one year away from the legal age of consent and Bowie would have been only 24 himself. I'm not splitting hairs over that. I'm a woman and I became sexually active when I was 15 myself. These SJW cuntsuckers can eat a dick.
>>61684561 This generation is no more stupid or conceited than any other. The digitilazation of the world has just made an easy outlet for ignorance. Guarantee if the Internet was wide spread and developed when you grew up the same sort of criticisms would appear
>>61684859 >This generation is no more stupid or conceited than any other. You're both right and wrong at the same time. Every generation is stupid, but that stupidity always manifested itself in different ways.
>>61684918 Well I think it's worth pointing out what she looked like since people are saying "maybe he didn't know she was underage", it's unlikely when she looked like that. Especially since she's probably older in these pics. Also, he tried to have sex with her when she was 14, so not just one year off. Also, did you lose your virginity to someone in their mid 20s?
>>61684622 >So you're saying on the morning of everybody's 18th birthday a switch is flipped that magically turns a drooling kid into an adult capable of making conscious decisions?
not at all. thats just generally about the age where people really begin to understand the ramifications of their actions. i dont understand where all this 13-14+ year olds are intellectually mature thing comes from. looking back, i was a complete fucking idiot at 13/14 and did so many things i regret. most 13/14 year olds today are actually even dumber than they were just like a 6-7 years ago.
>>61683697 I just find it weird how people act like it was never any different. For practical, social reasons, I'm fine with it not begin OK to knock up 14 year olds, but the stigma that to even think of such a thing is the most horrible thing in the world is bizarre.
>>61684213 Also he was part of an untouchable peadophile ring that was enabled by the BBC and the establishment, that had a lot to do with it. Lots of people knew and didn't say anything because they would either have not been taken seriously or lost their jobs, or both
So now the Pitchfork SJWs here, who love Bowie now that he's best new meme, are experiencing some crazy cognitive dissonance.
This is the first time I've ever seen /mu/ so apologetic for pedophilia. When Ian Watkins of Lost Prophets did the same thing, everyone was going nuts about that piece of shit. But now Pitchfork/RYM darling Bowie is accused of the same thing and no one gives a fuck!
>>61686638 >SJWs are all about crying rape, hating white men and promoting (approved) alternative lifestyles >don't know if they should condemn Bowie for his "abuse" or celebrate him due to being an icon for the gay community Being an SJW must be hard these days.
Sad truth: humans can be so volatile that they'll capitalize on a person's death being big news like this; use it as a platform and the ensuing buzz to bolster it further. To push a narrative that wouldn't be heard otherwise if they were still alive. To paint someone who's passed on in a bad light, with them defenseless (assuming they would have defended themselves in life to begin with). To steal from those mourning the ability to do so in good conscience, lest they be judged for mourning a person who did such and such thing, because obviously humans are black and white and must be judged solely for either their good or bad deeds.
Such is the nature of some humans. I make it a point to avoid these people.
>>61682733 Oh, and this too. Most people who are spouting this bullshit are the kind of lowlife millennial who shitposts on tumblr about how bad they have it because they have no talent or meaningful interests, and thus zero self esteem. Placing themselves in a crowd that's concerned with seemingly relevant moral issues like this makes them feel like they have some worth, the poor pathetic fuckers. I'd rather be dead and posthumously accused of people a kiddy diddler than live a day in their doc martens.
>>61686719 >he pleaded guilty to 13 charges, including the attempted rape and sexual assault of a child under 13 Yeah man, exactly the same Does anyone really take p4k serious anymore? Or value their opinion in any way?
>>61686828 >Apparently no one was hurt or forced and that's great, but it doesn' make it right. According to whom? You, judge and jury in one person? The supposed victim only had nice things to say about her experience - and there's no crime without a victim, whether you want it or not.
>Getting periods and being interested in boys is not a sign that they're not children. It's clearly a sign of maturing in a physical way. Hell, a girl getting her period means she's fertile. There is no way you can be that deluded.
>13 is young to have sex (not saying is WRONG) Nigga, most of my female classmates had sex when they were 13. Get with the times, you puritanical cunt creature.
>>61687059 Tumblr is just so funny. The way that the far left/hyper libertard ideas on it slowly faded out and got replaced with a communism hivemind that hates the far left and liberals is like art in motion. I wonder how long it will take until tumblr turns on communism too, and what political alignment they'll slowly meander towards afterwards.
>>61687059 >"Victims" What victims? All I hear is word of mouth from a girl who admits she loved every second of it. I'm sure that girl really loves being victimized by tumblr so that tumblr can throw out sensationalistic accusations.
>>61686981 So it's ok for, say, a grown man in his thirties to fuck an 11 year old as long as she has her period and thus "physically mature" ? It doesn't really matter that they're are technically able to give birth, they're still extremely young, naive and easy to coerce.
It's not appropriate for a grown adult to engage physically with a kid (I can't believe I have to type this), even if said kid bleeds once a month.
I'm not saying Bowie comitted a crime, I'm saying it's a very grey area which fortunately did no harm to the people involved but that doesn't make it a good thing.
>>61687239 Imagine being in a position like hers. One where you had consensual sex like 45 years ago with a rockstar, went on record saying it was the shit and you did it multiple other times with him and his wife in the 10 years following, and then people start calling you a victim and refuse to believe that you sincerely enjoyed it at all. Like, literally telling you how you SHOULD feel about it and that the only reason you feel the way you do is because you were victimized or brainwashed or something.
As a rule, sex with underage girls, especially at Bowie's age, is sus as fuck. But this is clearly an exception to the rule; why don't these people bitch and complain about something that actually matters? Why waste time and energy on this garbage? Why guilt people into mourning a pop star who gave them nearly 50 years of entertainment because of one black spot on his record?
>>61687318 >As a rule, sex with underage girls, especially at Bowie's age The age of consent is always going to be a morally ambigiuous issue considering what is defined as the right age of consent differs from culture to culture.
The irony is that if David Bowie fucked her in, France I believe it was, the act would morally and legally be considered fine and not an issue for sensationalism.
>>61687275 >So it's ok for, say, a grown man in his thirties to fuck an 11 year old as long as she has her period and thus "physically mature" ? You will have great trouble finding a girl at 11 who already has her period and sexually interested.
>It's not appropriate Jesus fucking Christ, out of what hole did you crawl?
>>61687059 >listening to the victims ya lmao go ahead and ask her how much she enjoyed consensually fucking David Bowie. I would actually love for the girl to come out and tell everybody to shut the fuck up about it because she probably doesn't give a shit.
>>61687345 >The irony is that if David Bowie fucked her in, France I believe it was, the act would morally and legally be considered fine and not an issue for sensationalism.
It's borderline. There's conflicting information about her age; if she was 13, then it's not okay because no first world country to my knowledge sets the AoC that low. If she was 15, I believe she was legal in France. If they didn't do it in France (pretty sure they didn't) then chances are wherever they were had an AoC of 16 or 18, 16 being of course very borderline and 18 being quite a decent disparity.
Basically it's hard to say for sure just how this should be viewed in the eyes of the law. Plus we don't even know for sure if it happened because this all literally spurred from Lori Maddox telling a story about losing her virginity to him. Usually I'm in the "Listen to rape victims" but this is literally her bragging about fucking Bowie and how much she loved it (and people are spinning it like she was victim), so I wouldn't be surprised if it's a load of bullshit.
Anyway, point is, we shouldn't obsess over the legality of it. Point is that most people will view it as morally gray at best, and that's okay. But the people jumping down Bowie's dead throat and the throat of everyone who is trying to mourn a deceased musician that means a lot to them are fucking parasites.
>>61686609 mist people at the bbc didn't know about the pedo ring, but savile being a pedo was a well known rumour, some described it as an open secret, the problem was that no one had any evidence, which meant that if anyone had gone on record about it they would expect to be sued for libel
>>61687382 This is a little different. Some Bill Cosby accusations were fairly fucking recent, and he did it a LOT. Plus drugging a woman and fucking her unconscious woman is a liiiiiiiiittle different from two consenting people having sex and reflecting on it positively despite one of the participants being (potentially) underage.
>>61687486 >potentially underage definitely underage senpai, don't dress it up
I'm not the guy you're replying to but regardless if she enjoyed it, its fucking weird and immoral for Bowie to do it. If it's one transgression in his life we can all move on, and I think it was just one. He's not a Bill Cosby, he's not a monster, he's jusy a human.
>>61687527 >definitely underage senpai, don't dress it up
Not true at all. The information is very conflicting; like I said in another post, if she was 15 as some people say and they did it in a country in where the AoC is 15 (yes, those exist), then there's no problem.
From what I read though it was in the US, where the bare minimum is 16, so to my knowledge she was underage. Just barely.
>>61687616 That's what I've read, and I find that believable. Until it's confirmed for sure I don't really wanna bother getting wrapped up in the legality of it (especially considering he's... dead?). Morally I'm not down with it, but it was a very different time. I don't like to use that argument but it's pretty fucking applicable here; people back then were super into the "free love" idea and coked out of their fucking minds, including Bowie. That doesn't absolve him of his actions in my mind, but I sure as fuck am not gonna dwell on it or act like he's the devil for doing this one shitty thing.
>>61687655 Exactly, and if it's any comfort to the people that are up in arms about this situation, this kind of shit would NEVER fly with musicians even HALF as popular as Bowie was. They'd be blacklisted so fast their head would spin.
>>61683036 But people don't get punished for having thought that way when it was common. And they shouldn't be.
This is equally as annoying as removing Lovecraft from the literary award because he was racist. Back a century and a half ago, being racist was the most common thing. People shouldn't be judged based on how they acted when different things were acceptable.
That said, if I was 13 and had a shot at 50 year old bowie I'd go for it with no ragrets
>>61686719 >This is the first time I've ever seen /mu/ so apologetic for pedophilia. When Ian Watkins of Lost Prophets did the same thing This is the worst bait I've seen all day. Bowie having consensual sex with a teenage girl isn't comparable to Ian Watkins raping a toddler.
>>61683844 i have heard about this consistently in "SJW" circles when Bowie has come up in the past (e.g. Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club on Facebook before I left). i think that his death has provided a good opportunity to publicize this information since it seems a bit arbitrary to bring up what is old virtually public knowledge with no Bowie event going on. i also think that the wider thought Bowie is receiving in the culture has led more "SJW" types to hear the story and thus have the ability to publicize it. i think that the anecdotal issue with Bowie that's being expressed is better expressed in conversation, and i haven't seen an article that wasn't the "SJW" equivalent of a huge fedora tip, and i say this as someone with no sentimentality for Bowie's legacy who largely agrees that what he did was wrong.
>it's okay to rape people if you are a good musician For fucks sake, /mu/ If it was anyone else you would be all screaming at the guy telling him he's a filthty pedophile who should go and get raped in prison. You wouldn't even question if the (13 year old girl) asked for it or enjoyed it.
>>61688575 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/deaf-paedophile-who-tried-meet-6207438 This guy didn't even comit a crime, Bowie did. What happened? Nothing to Bowie, three and a half years of prison for the other guy. Why? Because Bowie is a loved musician and the other guy isn't.
>>61688572 13 year old is a lot more likely. It's obvious a source augmented her age to make Bowie appear less of a pedophile than he actually is.
>>61688530 >>61688671 There's no proof Bowie fucked Lori. There aren't any photos of him with her and no one has ever corroborated her story. All we have is her word and she has always said that she came on to him and loved every second of fucking him.
Who gives a fuck? Groupies are fucking whores anyway who are in it for the fame and lifestyle. Not that I judge them. 70's were fucking crazy. She enjoyed every minute of hanging out, snorting coke and having sex with Bowie, Iggy, Jimmy Page and those were the best years of her life. What's wrong with it?
>>61683255 In the documentary about an old school music manager, SuperMensh, the guy says later on the rock stars had to stop fucking underage girls 'cause it could cause a scandal and the town would hate us. The interviewer Mike Myers says '.. And because its wrong(?)' And the guy goes, '...Yeah.' and they both laugh.
That manager would walk round wearing a t-shirt that read 'No blowjob, no backstage pass.'
>>61688734 >Plotting to have sex with an underage person is a crime, bud. People are convicted for it all of the fucking time. Yes, and Bowie did far more than that. He didn't plan of having sex with a 13 year old girl, he actually had sex with the 13 year old girl (unlike the guy from the link). But guess who got into prison and who didn't. It angers me that people seem to hate pedophiles with a passion, but as soon as it's someone loved by the media, it's "just a mistake" or "she enjoyed it". But only if the media likes you, otherwise it's "burn in hell" or "get raped in prison".
>>61688791 See ^^ and the link from my post above. She enjoying it doesn't make it any less of a pedophile and a criminal.
>>61688822 >But guess who got into prison and who didn't.
Let me take a few stabs. The guy whose crimes can be backed up with actual evidence?
>It angers me that people seem to hate pedophiles with a passion, but as soon as it's someone loved by the media, it's "just a mistake" or "she enjoyed it". But only if the media likes you, otherwise it's "burn in hell" or "get raped in prison".
Jesus fucking Christ, what rock did you climb out of? Does the name Bill Cosby mean anything to you? What about Gary Glitter? Ian Watkins?
People aren't crucifying Bowie because this shit happened nearly 50 years ago and it's morally gray at the very worst, plus there is zero hard evidence that it actually happened. You're being reactionary as fuck.
lol this is the clearest-cut example of social justice as a form of trend hopping yet.
this isn't a cosby situation where no one knew. there's literally a popular movie on this subject. haven't these youngins seen Almost Famous? you know the oscar movie that's not even that old? yet all these people are just now talking about it... no one cares because they were young groupies masquerading as adults and half of their stories are embellished for entertainment purposes.
>>61688874 >Let me take a few stabs. The guy whose crimes can be backed up with actual evidence? Fair.
>Does the name Bill Cosby mean anything to you? What about Gary Glitter? Ian Watkins? Fair
>People aren't crucifying Bowie because this shit happened nearly 50 years ago and it's morally gray at the very worst, plus there is zero hard evidence that it actually happened. Fair
It's all fair as long as you actually think Bowie didn't fuck her, but if you think he did, and do this >hate pedophiles with a passion, but as soon as it's someone loved by the media, it's "just a mistake" or "she enjoyed it". But only if the media likes you, otherwise it's "burn in hell" or "get raped in prison". You are the worst. Who cares if she enjoyed it? The "supposed" girl from the link could have enjoyed it too, but guess which one gets the hate and who gets the media love about it being "morally gray at worst".
>>61688876 Yeah, that's what I'm calling you a retard. Read my post again.
if she was travelling around wiht rock stars, without parental supervision, she was a defacto emancipated minor. morally, there was nothing particularly bad about this. we need to get over ourselves. 24 goes into 14, if 14 is into 24 enough. its not child rape, its just not likely to result in marriage. at the time, society thought it was titillating and scandalous, not criminal and completely transgressive.
>actively rebelled against convention >gender roles, sexuality, etc >had consensual sex with a 13-14 year old It's not seen as right by today's standards but it's a different league compared to Jimmy Savile or any of the British MPs abuse of children. Nobody is going to point that out outside 4chan though, it's just the popular contrarian stance of a much-loved popstar (like there always is). If you're gonna praise him for flouting convention then ignoring the law (in favour of making a fan's dream come true) comes with that disregard for societal norms.
"I lost my virginity to David Bowie" is an amazing anecdote. It's still not above board to fuck a 13 year old but I'm having a hard time viewing it as rape.
>>61688967 >if an underage girl ask for sex there's nothing wrong Tell that to these guys http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/deaf-paedophile-who-tried-meet-6207438 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-moment-paedophile-snared-vigilante-6174972 They paid with years of prison despite there being no sex at all. Oh, but Bowie? Yeah, he can fuck all the underage girls he wants (and I mean actually fucking them, unlike the guys above), because he makes good music.
>>61688982 See the links above. The "girl" was asking for it, but it turns out there was an actual issue and both guys got years of prison.
>>61688876 "fucked a 13 year old". is never ok? what if i am 13, with a 13 year old? what if her parents approve of our marriage? (thats was age of consent was about). what if we lived in any time and place other than right now? I fully agree that most sexual behavior between a 13 year old and someone much older is abusive, but its not always completely abusive. we may have to make it all illegal, that doesnt make it all immoral. get off your high horse.
>>61688956 >You are the worst. Who cares if she enjoyed it? The "supposed" girl from the link could have enjoyed it too, but guess which one gets the hate and who gets the media love about it being "morally gray at worst".
Well, first of all, the only media sources that are actually commenting on this affair are basically all calling Bowie out.
Second of all, "who cares if she enjoyed it?" Literally everybody should care. Lori is a perfectly well-adjusted woman who reflects extremely fondly on her first time with David Bowie, then discusses the fact that she continued having consensual sex with him and his wife for a literal decade afterwards while reflecting on that fondly, and people think there's a fucking problem?
I'm amazed that third wave feminists and liberals can be so obsessed with women's sexuality and then turn around and tell this woman that she didn't actually enjoy it, and that she was victimized and she just doesn't know better. She's a fully fucking grown woman, why are teenagers on tumblr and journalists in their mid 20s trying to tell her how she should feel about this thing that happened 50 years ago? I want you to explain that to me.
>>61689105 I'm not sure who you're addressing right now. I'm enraged by sexual assault cases involving any man regardless of race, provided there's actual evidence provided, and when there's an actual victim. Neither is the case here.
>>61689022 You dense fucker, it's the other way around. I'm putting Bowie at the level of the guys from the links (even lower, actually), not the other way around. The three guys are criminals, I'm not downplaying the incident, I'm saying why that incident is an awful thing and why it should be considered as such by "pedophile Bowie apologists".
>>61689046 >Well, first of all, the only media sources that are actually commenting on this affair are basically all calling Bowie out. Just read posts like these, what the people actually think >>61688982 >>61688967 >>61688798
>Second of all, "who cares if she enjoyed it?" Literally everybody should care. Lori is a perfectly well-adjusted woman who reflects extremely fondly on her first time with David Bowie, then discusses the fact that she continued having consensual sex with him and his wife for a literal decade afterwards while reflecting on that fondly, and people think there's a fucking problem? In that case, would you allow the guys from the link to have sex with other underage girls if they agreed about it through whatsapp or something like that? If not, you are being inconsistent.
>I'm amazed that third wave feminists and liberals can be so obsessed with women's sexuality and then turn around and tell this woman that she didn't actually enjoy it, and that she was victimized and she just doesn't know better. I'm not saying that. I'm saying Bowie should be treated worse than the guys from the links, because his crimes where far worse than theirs.
>She's a fully fucking grown woman, why are teenagers on tumblr and journalists in their mid 20s trying to tell her how she should feel about this thing that happened 50 years ago? I want you to explain that to me. My point is that people should treat Bowie and the guys from the link equally (actually, Bowie should be treated worse). Besides, we had no idea she would turn into a well-adjusted woman after 20 years it happened.
>>61689082 Yes, and both got arrested. That's a fact. Let me explain this to you in easier terms >Two guys get into many years of prison for planning on having sex with an underage girl. The media hates them. Even if the "girls" (if they actually existed) could have enjoyed it. >Bowie actually fucks an underage girl. The media thinks of it as "a little mistake" and "she enjoyed it, so it's okay"
>>61689099 Missing the point. Did you see the links? If the "girls" there where actual girls, they would be enjoying it (since they consented to it), but there wasn't even a girl on the first place and the guys got into years of prison. Bowie on the other hand, he actually fucked an underage girl, but people don't make a big fuss about it.
People need to stop saying that this girl was 13 when according to her story she was 15 with Bowie being 8 years older than her at 23.
Also her story keeps changing and reads like a self-insert fanfiction. She originally claimed they did it in 1973 during the US Ziggy tour, and then changed it to 1972 when she realised that Bowie was in California in 1972. She claims she lost her virginity to Bowie, but she was photographed with Jimmy Page whilst in a relationship before Bowie even came to the US...
Just FYI the girl's name is Lori Maddox and she was like Queen baby groupie #2 after Sable Starr. She was photographed virtually every night hanging off the arm of some musician or other, claims that just and Bowie were on and off for over 10 years and not ONE photograph exists of them together.
>>61689143 >Just read posts like these, what the people actually think
Do you know what the media is? Hint: it's not a cambodian tap dancing forum.
>In that case, would you allow the guys from the link to have sex with other underage girls if they agreed about it through whatsapp or something like that? If not, you are being inconsistent.
Given that the girls NEVER FUCKING EXISTED BECAUSE THE MEN WERE CAUGHT BY VIGILANTES POSING AS TEENAGE GIRLS ONLINE WITH THE INTENT ON CATCHING WOULD-BE PEDOPHILES, I don't see how that's a relevant point.
(I all-caps'd that bit of info because clearly the articles you linked were too long and had too many big words for you to comprehend that there was no actual fucking teenage girl in either of those cases.)
>I'm not saying that. I'm saying Bowie should be treated worse than the guys from the links, because his crimes where far worse than theirs.
His crime of allegedly having consensual sex with a maybe-13 or maybe-15 year old 50 years ago who now reflects on the possibly-true memory fondly is worse than a man planning to have sex with what he thinks is a 13 year old girl he met online?
>My point is that people should treat Bowie and the guys from the link equally (actually, Bowie should be treated worse). Besides, we had no idea she would turn into a well-adjusted woman after 20 years it happened.
But she did. So why the fuck are people upset? Normally, yeah, this would be a problem. At the time, it was sus as fuck and very creepy of him. But there's no reason to be upset about this in the current year two thousand and sixteen because literally nobody was harmed.
>Yes, and both got arrested. That's a fact.
That isn't what I was referring to you idiot. I was referring to your apparent inability to read the fact that both men were caught because they were lured into a trap. In other words, no teenage girls were actually involved; it was all a set up.
>>61689136 See >>61689012 There was no actual victim (there was nothing at all, just a plan), yet they still got into years of prison (unlike Bowie, where there was an actual girl, who was actually being fucked by Bowie). I'm not saying he should have been jailed (because there's no evidence), I just want address the incoherence between people who think of Bowie as "doing nothing bad", but think the guys from the link above are "disgusting pedophiles", despite the case being the other way around.
>>61683061 Instead of shocked, saddned, or in mouning, we are "triggered". Instead of being transgressive, Bowie now "represents the marginalized." Ideas and vocabulary that are neutral to a dominant ideology are replaced with ideas and vocabulary that aren't neutral.
Dude, it doesn't fucking MATTER if there was an actual girl or not. Plotting to meet with a 13 year old, whether they're real or not, to have sex with them, is illegal. Then they got caught, and there is proof that they wanted to do the illegal act. So they went to fucking jail.
Bowie also did illegal thing, maybe possibly, depending on where it happened and if she was 13 or 15, and if it actually happened to begin with, and also it was literally 50 years ago. Also he's fucking dead.
Do you really not see why these two cases aren't really comparable? It has nothing to fucking do with race or fame or money or anything; you're basing all of this bullshit off of something one person said, and as another anon pointed out, Lori Maddox has told this story before and keeps changing the details. And even if it did happen, there's no victim, so who cares?
If the girls in those cases were real and consented, it would be different because we don't know if they'll turn out well adjusted or not so it's easy to perceive them as being victims (in fact it's common sense to perceive them as being victims). But with Lori, we KNOW that she turned out just fucking fine, so why should anyone actually care?
>>61689352 >its almost like they were on a mission to destroy as many lives as possible not at all most of the groupies back then just wanted to have a good time one of the girls in question even got kidnapped by another rockstar..cant remember who it was but..yeah
>>61689219 >Do you know what the media is? Hint: it's not a cambodian tap dancing forum. Okay, for the sake of simplicity let's just keep it to the opinion of the masses (facebook, 4chan, etc).
>Given that the girls NEVER FUCKING EXIST[...]S ONLINE WITH THE INTENT ON CATCHING WOULD-BE PEDOPHILES, I don't see how that's a relevant point. Yes. See >Bowie Fucks an underage girl. No prison, masses think of it as "normal" because she enjoyed it. >Guys above They don't even fuck a girl (which means, it was less of a crime than actually fucking a girl), the "girls" consented to it (meaning the would have enjoyed it). Three and a half years of prison, masses hate them.
Isn't that a little bit inconsistent? Pedophile Bowie apologists are in no way better than pedophile apologists.
>His crime of allegedly having consensual sex with a maybe-13 or maybe-15 year old 50 years ago who now r[...]t he thinks is a 13 year old girl he met online? Actually having consensual sex with an underage girl is okay, but planning on having consensual sex with an underage girl is not? Wow!
>But she did. So why the fuck are people upset? Normally, yeah, this would be a problem. At the time, it was sus as fuck and very creepy of him. But there's no reason to be upset about this in the current year two thousand and sixteen because literally nobody was harmed. Yes the masses think of it as "nothing bad happened", but if you fuck an underage girl now (even if she consents to it and remains mentally stable years later) you should burn in hell. Yeah, alright.
>That isn't what I was referring to you idiot. I was referring to your apparent inability to read the fact that both men were caught because they were lured into a trap. In other words, no teenage girls were actually involved; it was all a set up. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Can't you see how inconsistent that is with Bowie's reaction of the masses? Fuck girl -> it's okay Plan on fuck a girl -> burn in hell Yeah, it's completely fine.
>>61689261 This isn't about law, it's about the perception of the masses. People thinking it's okay to fuck an underage girl if you consent to it (and if you are loved by the media), but it's not okay to even plan on consensually fucking a girl.
>>61689358 It's not about the law, it's about the perception of people.
>And even if it did happen, there's no victim, so who cares? There was no victim in the case of the guys either.
>If the girls in those cases were real and consented, it would be different because we don't know if they'll turn out well adjusted or not so it's easy to perceive them as being victims (in fact it's common sense to perceive them as being victims). But with Lori, we KNOW that she turned out just fucking fine, so why should anyone actually care? Yes, but why do people think of Bowie as a "saint", but the guys above as "the devil"? The people calling the guys to burn in hell and get raped in prison shouldn't say those things, because the "girls" consented to them, just like Bowie's girl.
>>61689929 Nice job ignoring that my point was about the reaction of the people and not the legal aspect. I'm talking about people like these >>61688982 >>61688967 >>61688798 Who think that what Bowie did was okay, but what the guys from the links above did wasn't okay.
It is totally stupid and ill-advised to fuck underaged girls, but fact is it won't tarnish his legacy because it happened 45 years ago and she turned out fine.
It does not matter if he's famous or not, if a person I vaguely knew told me that he as a 23-year old fucked a 14 year old in 1974, I would think "that was fucking stupid, I'm glad you did not do it again", not scream "FUCKING RAPIST SCUM I HOPE YOU DIE!!!!!!"
>>61688530 >>61690148 You idiots are confusing /mu/ with tumblr. This board never gets genuinely upset over rape accusations. I remember when it was revealed Ian Watkins raped a toddler most of this board was joking about it.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.