Options
13 year old Sunset Strip music groupies
10000maniacs
Posts: 831 Forum Member
✭✭
Are the 70s exploits of UK Rock stars on tour in the US going to be investigated, or maybe its ok in this case because these 13 year old children were compensated nicely and were very willing participants anyway.
There is a number of sordid stories involving huge 70s acts that in my opinion need to be investagated by the media as thoroughly as they are now doing with Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter.
There is a number of sordid stories involving huge 70s acts that in my opinion need to be investagated by the media as thoroughly as they are now doing with Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter.
0
Comments
The silence is deafening.
Lets start with the rock stars who have admitted it (in published interviews) and work from there.
I would imagine that there are groupies who "would" for any band - look at the teen girl hysteria over Bros, Take That, Back Street Boys, N*Sync, Jonas Brothers, Bieber.... There will always be girls there for the taking. In my opinion, this is very different from the kind of "grooming" blackmail Saville used. He seemed to prey upon disadvantaged children, using the offer of tickets to TOTP or Jim'll to get them to perform sexual acts on him, or by attacking those least able to defend themselves, ie the disabled, incarcerated or even the dead (if all the stories are correct)
If you're after every rock star who ever took advantage of a groupie we'll probably be there forever..
Just my opinion, of course
I agree, it's illegal and wrong. To be honest I struggle with this topic but was trying to make a point, not really sure what point that is though. Is it "less wrong" if the girl is willing than if she's not? I realise that a 13 year old can't legally give consent. I don't really know where I'm going with this. Not trying to make anybody angry!
ETA: I think grumpyoldbat made the point I was utterly failing to make! Thanks, grump
IMO if a 13 yr old is having sex with her 1416yr old boyfriend then it happens but when you get a 13yr old with a much older man then there is an imbalance of power and I would be asking why didn't he think about her age ( I say think because he could ask and get told a lie but if he is asking then he shouldn't!) and why would he want sex with a 13yr old?
Should UK band members like xxx and solo performers like yyy, be brought before the courts if it is proved that they sexually exploited under age teens in Los Angeles the 1970s?
Maybe, but.should they be exposed relentlessly by the media anyway? Or is their music too iconic?
What makes you think she was paid to talk?
Too much publicity and the trials will fall over as they won't get a fair trial and then they'll have to be declared innocent
http://www.stryder.de/rest/Groupie_Central_Lori_%20Maddox.html
By all means go after the abusers, but for those who were involved the best part of 40 years ago and consented to what went on at after-gig parties, what's the point?
Why cover up the names, it's well known what groups were sleeping with them.
I've read a few books and even though they seem to think they are muses and were used for something greater, they weren't. They were used for sex by a bunch of druggies who made good music.
If a child is underage, their what you call willingness is not an issue. They are underage. Sexual actvity with them is illegal. It is the moral and legal responsibility of the adult in such a situation to ensure the safety of the child and not engage in sexual activity of any kind with them.
There are no excuses for child abuse. Not short skirts, or makeup, or 'she seemed keen' or 'I didn't ask for her birth certificate'. No excuses.
I think coming back to the present, I worry about, the idea of dragging up things that happened 30 or 40 years ago in the name of 'justice. It surely must be a worry that any conviction for abuse would be 'sound' if it boils down to one persons word against another about an incident that happened in private 40 years ago.
And yet, on the other hand, like so many things you have to strike a balance. It is pretty clear that there were those like Saville who did break the law and abused youngsters. That can't be tolerated and has to be looked into. And if there are men alive still who committed such offences they should be prosecuted.
But, then, there is also the much more grey area of girls (and boys) who threw openly sought out sexual encounters with rock and film stars. That is nothing like so clear cut, despite certain 'individuals trying to make out it is. For instance in different parts of the world there are different ages of consent. In Spain the age of consent is only 13 (yes really, I checked) , in France it is a 15 year and in the UK 16. So what would get you time in prison in the UK would not do so in Spain or France. The USA is more complicated still as it various from state to state.
So we need to be wary about some of the self-righteous cries from certain groups for a 'witch hunt' of 70's rock stars as the circumstances in such cases are much more complicated than it at first seems.
It was illegal to sleep with 13 year olds in the 70s and it's illegal now. The historical context means nothing, the law was different in the times of the Tudors and Stuarts.
Pointing out that people broke the law isn't a witch hunt.
'Everyone was at it' doesn't wash.
In the 70's I would jumped at the chance to sleep with David Bowie, Essex or Cassidy
It is also illegal to take banned drugs but millions of people still choose to do so.
Should every single one of those, stretching back to the 1960s, also be arrested and put in prison?
I'm not condoning what happened in the past but, as I have said before, what is the point of dragging it all up if those who were present consented at the time, irrespective of what laws were in place?
Because they were breaking the law.
This isn't a discussion about drug use.