I wonder if the under age girls he slept with will claim sexual abuse and if so will he be as stigmatised as other celebrities before him
If you're referring to groupies and willing fans in the 60s and 70s then I very highly doubt it. If it had been me I'd still be basking in the warm glow of having been with Bowie. He was a rock star of the 60s and 70s not a perv!
It was. I was teenager in the 70s and 16 seemed a staggeringly late age to lose your virginity. Unless you lived it, you have no real idea of what it was like then. Many of us didn't regard 13 as underage. Shocking to 2016 sensibilities I know but it's true. You can't take that period of time out of context. It was very permissive and free-for-all.
I am not of course talking about abusive relationships
Yes absolutely, and we young teenage girls seemed to be far crazier over our pop idols than the teens of today, remember all those crazy scenes at airports, you never see that now. We were a bubbling cauldron of hormones and Bowie seemed so dangerous and exciting. I remember Madonna saying she lost her virginity at 15 as a career move, I'm going to guess it wasn't with another 15 year old. Maybe we were just more permissive then, but I understand how it wouldn't sit right in today's climate.
If you're referring to groupies and willing fans in the 60s and 70s then I very highly doubt it. If it had been me I'd still be basking in the warm glow of having been with Bowie. Hewasarockstarofthe60sand70snotaperv!
Yes absolutely, and we young teenage girls seemed to be far crazier over our pop idols than the teens of today, remember all those crazy scenes at airports, you never see that now. We were a bubbling cauldron of hormones and Bowie seemed so dangerous and exciting. I remember Madonna saying she lost her virginity at 15 as a career move, I'm going to guess it wasn't with another 15 year old. Maybe we were just more permissive then, but I understand how it wouldn't sit right in today's climate.
Excellent summary! It really was a crazy time. And it's worth being this ripe old age today, to have been young then! Everything was different - less "wrap around care", shorter length of education (few went to university) so you were in the world of adults and work at a younger age...A different era
I wonder if the under age girls he slept with will claim sexual abuse and if so will he be as stigmatised as other celebrities before him
Sleeping with girls that are under-age IS abuse, they don't need to claim anything. Whatever the culture was at that time he still took complete advantage of girls that were of an age where they are too young to give consent. The excusing going on in this thread is really messed up.
Sleeping with girls that are under-age IS abuse, they don't need to claim anything. Whatever the culture was at that time he still took complete advantage of girls that were of an age where they are too young to give consent. The excusing going on in this thread is really messed up.
Spot on. I wonder if people would be so forgiving if we were talking about underage boys.
Sleeping with girls that are under-age IS abuse, they don't need to claim anything. Whatever the culture was at that time he still took complete advantage of girls that were of an age where they are too young to give consent. The excusing going on in this thread is really messed up.
They don't need to claim anything no, but if they don't, how do we know they exist and what ages they were? All we know is that he slept with a 15 year old girl as we have her own account of it. In the US that is statutory rape, the age of consent in California is 18, so these other rumoured underage girls could also have been 17 which is over the age of consent in other states and the UK. I'm not so naive to think that was always the case, but the point is we have no other facts to go on.
I didn't excuse it, I said in an earlier post that I think the groupie scene was gross, but it was a scene and David Bowie was in no way the only person mixed up in it. I believe it was Iggy Pop who slept with a 13 yr old by the way.
Also, in the UK, having sex with a 15 yr old isn't statutory rape, that is under the age of 13.
I don't think people are excusing it as such, it isn't a black and white issue. Age of consent is there to protect people, but you don't reach your 16th birthday and suddenly become mature enough to have sex, people have underage sex all the time, not just in the 70's but today also, it's not a simple subject.
I don't mean to be rude or undermine your concerns about this, I understand your point and also think it's wrong (as others have also said) but people may have been more receptive to your point if you hadn't claimed he was a child rapist in your first post on the subject, you also said he took the virginity of a 13 yr old which was also untrue, she was 15.
I am confused about her age as have read various accounts citing her as anything from 13-15. Under 18's are considered minors, children, in California where the incident took place. So yes, child rapist is correct.
legally a 14 -year-old cannot consent to sex with an adult. Legally, what Bowie did is considered rape. Legally, he should have been charged and tried. Yet, he wasn't and he bulk of Bowie-defenders claim it is because Lori "consented."
The man is dead. No one complained, then or now, let alone brought charges. It was the 70s (and like it or not, things were different then,especially in the wild world of groupies and rock stars).
Why have you got such a bee in your bonnet about it now?
I am confused about her age as have read various accounts citing her as anything from 13-15. Under 18's are considered minors, children, in California where the incident took place. So yes, child rapist is correct.
She was just under 15 or 15, you have quoted somebody else talking about it, in her own account she says she was closer to 15, she says she first saw him when she was just under 15 and it was a while later that she slept with him, hence my assumption that she was 15. I posted this interview earlier, I trust this source as it is a direct quote from her not somebody else talking about it. Why do you insist on believing these sources over the woman herself?
And no child rapist does not come into this, not by law, that is just what you want to call it. It is by law statutory rape, and yes by law he should have been charged. They actually have a big problem with this in California, 70% of teen pregnancies are by adult men, so he would have been joining a long queue, they don't even prosecute every case there. I obviously can't change your mind about this, and I really don't think you are interested in hearing any other view, so by all means continue with your incorrect statements. Just don't expect a great deal of people to go along with you.
Clearly a lot of middle-aged women in this thread projecting backwards with their mature sense of self onto their teenage selves. Okay, we get now that you were potential groupie tarts, willing to let someone into your knickers because he was the 'greatest rock star of the 70s'...
Awe and teenage worship with the implication that it equals consent...the best tools ever for the manipulator. The mechanism is well-known.
As someone remarked above, would there be as much explaining away if it was 14/15 year-old boys?
Returning to the OP's original question - did I like David Bowie as a performer and a person: yes, very much so. He was always compelling to watch, and as we know, he was never afraid to experiment. There was no playing safe for him.
I can highly recommend "Nothing Has Changed" for longtime and casual fans alike, or those who want to explore his music for the first time. I can do no better than to quote a reviewer:
"We have a wonderful retrospective pulling together songs from the different labels down his career, including RCA, Deram and Arista (the Buddha of Suburbia.)
The tracks (unusually for a compilation) start with the most recent and end with his earliest Mod material, an approach that works well as a combined listening experience.
As a treat, we have an offering from the unreleased 'Toy' album and a host of mixes which are often a little hard to track down (unless you are a die-hard Bowie fan of course!)
For the casual listener, it is a wonderful introduction to the work of a truly exceptional man. For long term fans like myself, it is a lovely treat to have this in my collection."
There are certainly tracks I haven't heard such as the unreleased ones from "Toys" and it shows me again just how good and diverse he was as a musician
I am confused about her age as have read various accounts citing her as anything from 13-15. Under 18's are considered minors, children, in California where the incident took place. So yes, child rapist is correct.
On balance, I think that I really liked over half of David Bowie's music, and tolerated most of the rest. As a person, every interview I've ever seen with or about the man suggests to me that he was a genuinely nice person. He was also a good actor, as evinced in Labyrinth - and in his interviews about that film he goes on at length about the talent of the other actors. Such generosity is not overrepresented in showbiz circles, alas. Eternal memory!
Always felt he was a bit overrated personally, not the greatest voice in the world, but I do fully acknowledge that he still released a lot of good tunes, I liked Young Americans and Starman, among others. As a Queen fan though, my personal favourite will always be Under Pressure-just listen to that note Freddie hits in it! At least they're now reunited.
I agree, I did not know we were allowed to say this.
Under Pressure was his best, probably because Freddie was involved.
I'm only 23 but my mum played his music a lot when I was a kid so I grew to appreciate him. Eventually started choosing to listen to him myself and I genuinely love him. I said not three months ago to my mum that it'll be a sad day when he goes.
My heart broke a little when I heard the news. I found out at work on my break. Had to call mum to find out if it was true. I'd read on the Internet a number of times previously that he'd died of a heart attack. It seems that the media were writing him off for years, bless him.
Genuinely gutted. I'm unashamed to say that I cried upon hearing the news. I've never cried over a celebrity death before.
Clearly a lot of middle-aged women in this thread projecting backwards with their mature sense of self onto their teenage selves. Okay, we get now that you were potential groupie tarts, willing to let someone into your knickers because he was the 'greatest rock star of the 70s'...
Awe and teenage worship with the implication that it equals consent...the best tools ever for the manipulator. The mechanism is well-known.
As someone remarked above, would there be as much explaining away if it was 14/15 year-old boys?
It was technically illegal. Guess what else was technically illegal? Smoking pot, snorting cocaine. All things that people in this social group did, and that many young people of the time did and still do. It was cool to transgress.
At that time, also, it was still VERY much the norm for working class girls and boys to marry as young as 15 or 16. Certainly by 20. I am younger than Bowie's generation but I recall my teen magazines in the late 70s being filled with unproblematic engagements at 15 or 16 to one's boyfriend of four or five years' standing. The idea of post compulsory education was not really a thing. In the world of "Jackie" and its ilk, girls started dating around 11 or 12, had serious boyfriends at 14 or so, perhaps stayed at school till they were 18, but more likely left at 16, got a job, got married. To boys a year or two older. Your goals in life were largely around attaching yourself to men. That is how we were raised, and it was FAR more prevalent in the 60s, early 70s. Girls at that time were raised to consider themselves young women, not children. By the time of the "sexual revolution" the existence of the Pill gave girls and young women freedom from pregnancy which meant they didn't have to end up marrying. But I think it's fair to say that society in general still emphasised catching a man as being a woman's ultimate goal in life, and for the groupie set, that was still the purpose. Just catching lots of them.
would there be as much explaining away if it was 14/15 year-old boys?
If 14/15 year old boys of the 50s, 60s and 70s were raised from birth to make themselves as desirable to men as possible and to make catching a man their primary goal in life, I think there would be, yeah. If Bowie had been gay and he'd been sleeping with male groupies of 15 or 16 I don't know that it would bother me. Why the age difference? Because a girl of 13 or 14 can look sexually fairly mature, even without the makeup etc. I've never seen a 13 year old boy who you'd mistake for 16 or 17. If the person looks like a young adult, then your average coke-fuelled rock star is not going to be asking for a birth certificate. Not back then anyway.
There are a lot of things that are extremely dodgy about the 70s. The fascination with child and teen sexuality, for one. But it's all rather a lot more complex than "evil menz raped teenagers", although that certainly did happen and that certainly cannot be discounted or ignored.
IT not as if Bowie had a ponchance for under16s, as has been said here, they were all at it in the 70s & no-one asked to see birth certificates before sleeping with someone. It was a hang up from the 60s free love era. Doesn't make it right of course, but just to highlight that our concerns of today, we're not theirs then.
Bowie was not a serial offender like some we can think of, and as he grew older he soUght relationships with WOMEN not young girls, so we can presume he was just caught up in the permissiveness of that era.
Comments
The one that we know about hasn't complained & has said that time in her life was brilliant
If it had been me I wouldn't complain either
If you're referring to groupies and willing fans in the 60s and 70s then I very highly doubt it. If it had been me I'd still be basking in the warm glow of having been with Bowie. He was a rock star of the 60s and 70s not a perv!
Yes absolutely, and we young teenage girls seemed to be far crazier over our pop idols than the teens of today, remember all those crazy scenes at airports, you never see that now. We were a bubbling cauldron of hormones and Bowie seemed so dangerous and exciting. I remember Madonna saying she lost her virginity at 15 as a career move, I'm going to guess it wasn't with another 15 year old. Maybe we were just more permissive then, but I understand how it wouldn't sit right in today's climate.
Spot on.:)
Excellent summary! It really was a crazy time. And it's worth being this ripe old age today, to have been young then! Everything was different - less "wrap around care", shorter length of education (few went to university) so you were in the world of adults and work at a younger age...A different era
Sleeping with girls that are under-age IS abuse, they don't need to claim anything. Whatever the culture was at that time he still took complete advantage of girls that were of an age where they are too young to give consent. The excusing going on in this thread is really messed up.
Spot on. I wonder if people would be so forgiving if we were talking about underage boys.
They don't need to claim anything no, but if they don't, how do we know they exist and what ages they were? All we know is that he slept with a 15 year old girl as we have her own account of it. In the US that is statutory rape, the age of consent in California is 18, so these other rumoured underage girls could also have been 17 which is over the age of consent in other states and the UK. I'm not so naive to think that was always the case, but the point is we have no other facts to go on.
I didn't excuse it, I said in an earlier post that I think the groupie scene was gross, but it was a scene and David Bowie was in no way the only person mixed up in it. I believe it was Iggy Pop who slept with a 13 yr old by the way.
Also, in the UK, having sex with a 15 yr old isn't statutory rape, that is under the age of 13.
I don't think people are excusing it as such, it isn't a black and white issue. Age of consent is there to protect people, but you don't reach your 16th birthday and suddenly become mature enough to have sex, people have underage sex all the time, not just in the 70's but today also, it's not a simple subject.
I don't mean to be rude or undermine your concerns about this, I understand your point and also think it's wrong (as others have also said) but people may have been more receptive to your point if you hadn't claimed he was a child rapist in your first post on the subject, you also said he took the virginity of a 13 yr old which was also untrue, she was 15.
From http://wittybitches.com/2016/01/david-bowie-was-a-rapist/ (which says she was 14)
Edited: It seems by this that she was indeed at least 14 or under: http://theroguefeminist.tumblr.com/post/93435503998/lori-maddox-talks-about-the-night-she-lost-her
Why have you got such a bee in your bonnet about it now?
She was just under 15 or 15, you have quoted somebody else talking about it, in her own account she says she was closer to 15, she says she first saw him when she was just under 15 and it was a while later that she slept with him, hence my assumption that she was 15. I posted this interview earlier, I trust this source as it is a direct quote from her not somebody else talking about it. Why do you insist on believing these sources over the woman herself?
And no child rapist does not come into this, not by law, that is just what you want to call it. It is by law statutory rape, and yes by law he should have been charged. They actually have a big problem with this in California, 70% of teen pregnancies are by adult men, so he would have been joining a long queue, they don't even prosecute every case there. I obviously can't change your mind about this, and I really don't think you are interested in hearing any other view, so by all means continue with your incorrect statements. Just don't expect a great deal of people to go along with you.
Awe and teenage worship with the implication that it equals consent...the best tools ever for the manipulator. The mechanism is well-known.
As someone remarked above, would there be as much explaining away if it was 14/15 year-old boys?
I can highly recommend "Nothing Has Changed" for longtime and casual fans alike, or those who want to explore his music for the first time. I can do no better than to quote a reviewer:
"We have a wonderful retrospective pulling together songs from the different labels down his career, including RCA, Deram and Arista (the Buddha of Suburbia.)
The tracks (unusually for a compilation) start with the most recent and end with his earliest Mod material, an approach that works well as a combined listening experience.
As a treat, we have an offering from the unreleased 'Toy' album and a host of mixes which are often a little hard to track down (unless you are a die-hard Bowie fan of course!)
For the casual listener, it is a wonderful introduction to the work of a truly exceptional man. For long term fans like myself, it is a lovely treat to have this in my collection."
There are certainly tracks I haven't heard such as the unreleased ones from "Toys" and it shows me again just how good and diverse he was as a musician
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nothing-Has-Changed-David-Bowie/dp/B00NES1D6A
Here are another couple of links. One on Sable Starr and Lori Maddox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sable_Starr
http://www.stryder.de/rest/Groupie_Central_Lori_%20Maddox.html
Save him live once June 1997, was not impressed to be honest.
Still his music brought something to others so RIP David.
I agree, I did not know we were allowed to say this.
Under Pressure was his best, probably because Freddie was involved.
My heart broke a little when I heard the news. I found out at work on my break. Had to call mum to find out if it was true. I'd read on the Internet a number of times previously that he'd died of a heart attack. It seems that the media were writing him off for years, bless him.
Genuinely gutted. I'm unashamed to say that I cried upon hearing the news. I've never cried over a celebrity death before.
RIP Bowie
Didn't like the sound his voice made.
It was technically illegal. Guess what else was technically illegal? Smoking pot, snorting cocaine. All things that people in this social group did, and that many young people of the time did and still do. It was cool to transgress.
At that time, also, it was still VERY much the norm for working class girls and boys to marry as young as 15 or 16. Certainly by 20. I am younger than Bowie's generation but I recall my teen magazines in the late 70s being filled with unproblematic engagements at 15 or 16 to one's boyfriend of four or five years' standing. The idea of post compulsory education was not really a thing. In the world of "Jackie" and its ilk, girls started dating around 11 or 12, had serious boyfriends at 14 or so, perhaps stayed at school till they were 18, but more likely left at 16, got a job, got married. To boys a year or two older. Your goals in life were largely around attaching yourself to men. That is how we were raised, and it was FAR more prevalent in the 60s, early 70s. Girls at that time were raised to consider themselves young women, not children. By the time of the "sexual revolution" the existence of the Pill gave girls and young women freedom from pregnancy which meant they didn't have to end up marrying. But I think it's fair to say that society in general still emphasised catching a man as being a woman's ultimate goal in life, and for the groupie set, that was still the purpose. Just catching lots of them.
If 14/15 year old boys of the 50s, 60s and 70s were raised from birth to make themselves as desirable to men as possible and to make catching a man their primary goal in life, I think there would be, yeah. If Bowie had been gay and he'd been sleeping with male groupies of 15 or 16 I don't know that it would bother me. Why the age difference? Because a girl of 13 or 14 can look sexually fairly mature, even without the makeup etc. I've never seen a 13 year old boy who you'd mistake for 16 or 17. If the person looks like a young adult, then your average coke-fuelled rock star is not going to be asking for a birth certificate. Not back then anyway.
There are a lot of things that are extremely dodgy about the 70s. The fascination with child and teen sexuality, for one. But it's all rather a lot more complex than "evil menz raped teenagers", although that certainly did happen and that certainly cannot be discounted or ignored.
Bowie was not a serial offender like some we can think of, and as he grew older he soUght relationships with WOMEN not young girls, so we can presume he was just caught up in the permissiveness of that era.
Whatever The Man Who Sold The World album was, it certainly wasn't nonchalant.
That shows how opinions differ, because to me that was one of his truly dreadful efforts – virtually on a par with laughing gnome.
Me neither. 70s/80s Bowie was hot😍