I think it is slightly odd too but just as an example, what about Harry Styles and his various older women? Would you consider him to have suffered from abuse when he was 17 and Caroline Flack 32? To me it is peculiar in a 'takes all sorts' kind of way but not abusive or anything.
I think she's bizarre, but it's not abusive. I can't for the life of me see why any woman in her 30s would go near a 17 year old boy. Harry is cute as anything, but he'd annoy the shit out of me. Besides, I remember what sex was like with a 17 year old when I was 17-- I'm in no hurry to repeat that experience. Jackhammer sex and no foreplay? No thanks!
Unbelievable! An underage fan wants some stardom and is blamed for being abused is what you're saying. Remember she committed suicide over this.
There seems to be a lot of 'she was asking for it' going on in this thread which is clearly the mentality we want/ need to move away from as a society isn't it?
No we need to remember a story has been sold to the Daily Mail claiming she committed suicide over this, it also claimed she named a string of celebs , a Coroner dismissed her diary as fantasy.
Perhaps we need to remember all of the facts and not just what the Mail headlines.
It's not an objection so much as a kind of disbelief
Old, and looked it.
Also not the most handsome man around
Silly voice and silly mannerisms
Perhaps times have changed. I can't imagine any teenage girl going for that now.
I'm trying to think of the female equivalent of Savile. Whoever she is, I wouldn't be interested!
Ach, that's fair enough.
I think it's pretty unsurprising that a person who has never been a teenage girl would be baffled by them and how they think.
I was one, many, many years ago, so I have a bit more of an inside track, I suppose.
john peel was quite open about this in his various books and radio shows, its not news rather a pathetic attempt by the daily mail to twist a story into something its not, it was a different time in the 60's and what john peel did was perfectly acceptable at the time
Actually, as much as the defenders of Savile and others claim that, it wasn't the case at all.
I actually do beleive the women in the documentary in the main. However one thing that I am still not able to understand is that one woman said her first incident with Saville was at 15 and that the sexual relations ended with Saville 5 years later when she was 20. Now i just genuinley do not understand how it went on for five years.
The conclusion to me is that the first experience with Jimmy didn't traumatise her as much as she is making out.
It's interesting how fans of Peel try to spin his quotes:
When he was older, he recalled some of the ‘perks’ of the job in several newspaper interviews in the Seventies and Eighties. Girls, some as young as 13, he said, used to queue up outside his studio to offer him sexual favours. ‘Well, of course, I didn’t ask for ID,’ he said.‘All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course I was only too happy to do.
‘It was the glamour of the job . . . but frustratingly, American girls of that period — as they do now, actually — had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night.
‘So they would do anything but s*** you. They’d give you a b*** *** before they’d s*** you.’
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by all of this, well most people who lived through the 1960s and 70s as teenagers won't be! Those of you who are too young to remember the groupie culture should have a nice long chat with your parents or grandparents about it, they'll soon put you right!
It's not as if any of these girls would have gone up to the stars of the day and said "hey I'm 14/15 and I wanna f*** you" - they'd do themselves up to look older, remain silent about their age, the DJs/groups etc. would assume they were the age they vaguely looked and not ask too many questions.
In those days, they would usually be OK if found out as they'd use the "reasonably believed she was 16" excuse and usually, that would be the end of it, unlike today. Times have changed and it is unfair IMO to judge them all now by the standards of today for what they did 40-50 years ago when Society was different..
Actually, as much as the defenders of Savile and others claim that, it wasn't the case at all.
we are talking about peely
not savile, whos aledged behaviour was entirely different
and yes it was,
i have a couple of women friends still from back then
who i know were groupies at 14-15
(younger friends of my now wife before anyone gets any ideas)
nobody was particularly concerned, they certainly weren't and aren't
i suspect their parents etc may have been had they known about it
but because they were having sex, not who it was with
we are talking about peely
not savile, whos aledged behaviour was entirely different
and yes it was,
i have a couple of women friends still from back then
who i know were groupies at 14-15
(younger friends of my now wife before anyone gets any ideas)
nobody was particularly concerned, they certainly weren't and aren't
i suspect their parents etc may have been had they known about it
but because they were having sex, not who it was with
What I'm saying is it wasn't accepted by "society" any more than it is now. Only by some liberals and those attracted to children - just as it is now.
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by all of this, well most people who lived through the 1960s and 70s as teenagers won't be! Those of you who are too young to remember the groupie culture should have a nice long chat with your parents or grandparents about it, they'll soon put you right!
It's not as if any of these girls would have gone up to the stars of the day and said "hey I'm 14/15 and I wanna f*** you" - they'd do themselves up to look older, remain silent about their age, the DJs/groups etc. would assume they were the age they vaguely looked and not ask too many questions.
In those days, they would usually be OK if found out as they'd use the "reasonably believed she was 16" excuse and usually, that would be the end of it, unlike today. Times have changed and it is unfair IMO to judge them all now by the standards of today for what they did 40-50 years ago when Society was different..
Exactly, if you were a pop star with crowds of girls throwing themselves at you,you're hardly going to ask how old are you? there was a saying, when they're big enough they're old enough.
Exactly, if you were a pop star with crowds of girls throwing themselves at you,you're hardly going to ask how old are you? there was a saying, when they're big enough they're old enough.
Actually you should do. The same should go for prostitutes as well.
Exactly, if you were a pop star with crowds of girls throwing themselves at you,you're hardly going to ask how old are you? there was a saying, when they're big enough they're old enough.
I thought that was about footballers. The one about girls was more on the lines of fields having grass on them etc...
I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by all of this, well most people who lived through the 1960s and 70s as teenagers won't be! Those of you who are too young to remember the groupie culture should have a nice long chat with your parents or grandparents about it, they'll soon put you right!
It's not as if any of these girls would have gone up to the stars of the day and said "hey I'm 14/15 and I wanna f*** you" - they'd do themselves up to look older, remain silent about their age, the DJs/groups etc. would assume they were the age they vaguely looked and not ask too many questions.
In those days, they would usually be OK if found out as they'd use the "reasonably believed she was 16" excuse and usually, that would be the end of it, unlike today. Times have changed and it is unfair IMO to judge them all now by the standards of today for what they did 40-50 years ago when Society was different..
They wouldn't ask too many questions because they knew what the answer may very well be. That's a terrible excuse. That's a little bit like saying "I didn't ask for sex because she would probably have said no." Just because they could do it and could get away with it is no reason not to condemn it.
His first wife was 15, he married her in Texas, but she lied and said she was older. He was 25.
As for the rest of your post...so? Just because he was a great DJ doesn't mean he was a great person. Wagner was an anti-Semite yet I adore his music.
OP, I seriously don't think the BBC is some paedo-harbouring institution. Get a grip. The Mail-- a paper that regularly features underage girls in their swimwear and posts suggestive headlines over them. As for the tax avoidance, pound to a penny it's going on in the Mail too. I wonder how many of their freelancers operate as sole traders or as limited companies.
Wagner off of the X Factor - you are the first person I have ever heard say that they adored his music - was it you that voted for him week after week?
As for the Daily Mail, they are positively relishing dragging the BBC through the mud.
John Peel's biography openly talks about underage girls. It also talks about him dabbling in drugs. Things that in later life he was not so proud of.
Imo there is a world of difference between sleeping with young girls who are fully concentual (albeit underage) and using a position of power to sleep with vulnerable girls.
The lasting effects on the individual will be totally different as well. Some of my classmates when I was 14/15 were fairly promiscuous and now well into their 50s they will laugh about their 'wild teens'. A different ballgame to someone who has harboured the distress of being abused against their will for decades.
Actually, as much as the defenders of Savile and others claim that, it wasn't the case at all.
it was the case, the likes of john peel and many others all slept with underage girls, artists like elvis etc all did this, it was acceptable behaviour up until the early 90's when all this fuss started, bill wyman from the rolling stones married mandy smith in 1989 when she was 18 he had been going out with her since she was 13 and there wasnt the massive fuss you would get now,
added to that the current age of consent in most of europe is between 13 + 15 japan and china are 13 + 14 and 33% of teenagers in the uk have sex before they are 16
Imo there is a world of difference between sleeping with young girls who are fully concentual (albeit underage) and using a position of power to sleep with vulnerable girls.
I don't think the allegations / implied actions towards Savile and Peel are that different. It seems to me that the real difference here is that the stories about Savile - and the lasting effect of the experiences - are coming from the mouths of (alleged) victims, so we're bound to be more sympathetic to them and therefore more hostile towards Savile.
With Peel we only have his side of the story, not, say, the 13-year-old who (allegedly) gave him a blow job. Which makes it much easier to just dismiss as "the kind of thing that happened back then", it seems to me.
Personally I'm trying to keep an open mind on both cases.
it was the case, the likes of john peel and many others all slept with underage girls, artists like elvis etc all did this, it was acceptable behaviour up until the early 90's when all this fuss started, bill wyman from the rolling stones married mandy smith in 1989 when she was 18 he had been going out with her since she was 13 and there wasnt the massive fuss you would get now,
added to that the current age of consent in most of europe is between 13 + 15 japan and china are 13 + 14 and 33% of teenagers in the uk have sex before they are 16
What I'm saying is it wasn't accepted by "society" any more than it is now. Only by some liberals and those attracted to children - just as it is now.
its perfectly normal to be sexually attracted to people who have experienced puberty, they are physically adult, to claim anything else is absolute nonsense, the issue here is were the girls forced into what they were doing with jimmy saville the answer is yes with john peel the answer is no
They wouldn't ask too many questions because they knew what the answer may very well be. That's a terrible excuse. That's a little bit like saying "I didn't ask for sex because she would probably have said no." Just because they could do it and could get away with it is no reason not to condemn it.
The law provided for a reasonable belief that the teenager was 16 or over and what was considered reasonable then is different from what's considered reasonable now (by the law and its enforcers too), you have to look at the whole picture.
Judging a Society in what is now a fairly distant past by today's standards is as pointless as comparing say George Best with Lionel Messi. Standards change, hopefully for the better and that's life. Even now, some people still argue that how someone looks at first sight is enough to judge their age by (just look at some of the threads in this forum) and back then, that belief was widely accepted.
Comments
I think she's bizarre, but it's not abusive. I can't for the life of me see why any woman in her 30s would go near a 17 year old boy. Harry is cute as anything, but he'd annoy the shit out of me. Besides, I remember what sex was like with a 17 year old when I was 17-- I'm in no hurry to repeat that experience. Jackhammer sex and no foreplay? No thanks!
No we need to remember a story has been sold to the Daily Mail claiming she committed suicide over this, it also claimed she named a string of celebs , a Coroner dismissed her diary as fantasy.
Perhaps we need to remember all of the facts and not just what the Mail headlines.
How do you know she didn't , until full facts are known and proven there are two sides to every story
Ach, that's fair enough.
I think it's pretty unsurprising that a person who has never been a teenage girl would be baffled by them and how they think.
I was one, many, many years ago, so I have a bit more of an inside track, I suppose.
Bob: "Give me a handjob."
Girl: "I can't hear you."
Bob: "Give me a handjob."
Girl: "I still can't hear you."
And so on, until she was actually older than 16 anyhow.
Actually, as much as the defenders of Savile and others claim that, it wasn't the case at all.
The conclusion to me is that the first experience with Jimmy didn't traumatise her as much as she is making out.
Was it the Big Bopper in the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, who was supposed to have smuggled some young girls on board?
When he was older, he recalled some of the ‘perks’ of the job in several newspaper interviews in the Seventies and Eighties.
Girls, some as young as 13, he said, used to queue up outside his studio to offer him sexual favours. ‘Well, of course, I didn’t ask for ID,’ he said.‘All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course I was only too happy to do.
‘It was the glamour of the job . . . but frustratingly, American girls of that period — as they do now, actually — had this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night.
‘So they would do anything but s*** you. They’d give you a b*** *** before they’d s*** you.’
It's not as if any of these girls would have gone up to the stars of the day and said "hey I'm 14/15 and I wanna f*** you" - they'd do themselves up to look older, remain silent about their age, the DJs/groups etc. would assume they were the age they vaguely looked and not ask too many questions.
In those days, they would usually be OK if found out as they'd use the "reasonably believed she was 16" excuse and usually, that would be the end of it, unlike today. Times have changed and it is unfair IMO to judge them all now by the standards of today for what they did 40-50 years ago when Society was different..
I think they did but hushed it up.
we are talking about peely
not savile, whos aledged behaviour was entirely different
and yes it was,
i have a couple of women friends still from back then
who i know were groupies at 14-15
(younger friends of my now wife before anyone gets any ideas)
nobody was particularly concerned, they certainly weren't and aren't
i suspect their parents etc may have been had they known about it
but because they were having sex, not who it was with
Eh?
So how have you heard about it?
What I'm saying is it wasn't accepted by "society" any more than it is now. Only by some liberals and those attracted to children - just as it is now.
Exactly, if you were a pop star with crowds of girls throwing themselves at you,you're hardly going to ask how old are you? there was a saying, when they're big enough they're old enough.
Actually you should do. The same should go for prostitutes as well.
I thought that was about footballers. The one about girls was more on the lines of fields having grass on them etc...
They wouldn't ask too many questions because they knew what the answer may very well be. That's a terrible excuse. That's a little bit like saying "I didn't ask for sex because she would probably have said no." Just because they could do it and could get away with it is no reason not to condemn it.
Wagner off of the X Factor - you are the first person I have ever heard say that they adored his music - was it you that voted for him week after week?
As for the Daily Mail, they are positively relishing dragging the BBC through the mud.
John Peel's biography openly talks about underage girls. It also talks about him dabbling in drugs. Things that in later life he was not so proud of.
Imo there is a world of difference between sleeping with young girls who are fully concentual (albeit underage) and using a position of power to sleep with vulnerable girls.
The lasting effects on the individual will be totally different as well. Some of my classmates when I was 14/15 were fairly promiscuous and now well into their 50s they will laugh about their 'wild teens'. A different ballgame to someone who has harboured the distress of being abused against their will for decades.
it was the case, the likes of john peel and many others all slept with underage girls, artists like elvis etc all did this, it was acceptable behaviour up until the early 90's when all this fuss started, bill wyman from the rolling stones married mandy smith in 1989 when she was 18 he had been going out with her since she was 13 and there wasnt the massive fuss you would get now,
added to that the current age of consent in most of europe is between 13 + 15 japan and china are 13 + 14 and 33% of teenagers in the uk have sex before they are 16
With Peel we only have his side of the story, not, say, the 13-year-old who (allegedly) gave him a blow job. Which makes it much easier to just dismiss as "the kind of thing that happened back then", it seems to me.
Personally I'm trying to keep an open mind on both cases.
Acceptable by who?
its perfectly normal to be sexually attracted to people who have experienced puberty, they are physically adult, to claim anything else is absolute nonsense, the issue here is were the girls forced into what they were doing with jimmy saville the answer is yes with john peel the answer is no
The blokes who like 'em young
The law provided for a reasonable belief that the teenager was 16 or over and what was considered reasonable then is different from what's considered reasonable now (by the law and its enforcers too), you have to look at the whole picture.
Judging a Society in what is now a fairly distant past by today's standards is as pointless as comparing say George Best with Lionel Messi. Standards change, hopefully for the better and that's life. Even now, some people still argue that how someone looks at first sight is enough to judge their age by (just look at some of the threads in this forum) and back then, that belief was widely accepted.