4 ms·

So sex drugs and rock and roll arent cool anymore? Come off it. Living life isnt for everyone.

by whenchamenia 7y ago

malvosenior 7y ago
Yes, sex with underage girls isn't cool. Not sure I'd call that "living life" more like extinguishing it.
phs318u 7y ago
Really? Cos you haven’t lived until you’ve bedded a deluded 15 year old? Spare me.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Based on my reading of the article, she was 13 when Iggy slept with her and knew that fact. That’s a bit materially different than standard rock-and-roll excess. Were age of consent laws less of a thing back in his day? Edit: Seems as though this should’ve been / is a crime?[0] [0] - http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24 http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...
  - WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
    On reflection, most adults didn't care much about underage sex until they were able to leveraged it into public outrage - and therefore power for themselves. The proof of this lies with pre-1980s generations of child sex abuse victims, who knew (or quickly learned) to not go to adults in authority - especially police. At best, they could be expect to be ignored, marginalized and/or gaslighted. At worst could be more abuse, even if 'only' verbal, physical, etc. Reality is that most adults in authority didn't give a crap about child abuse until they could use abuse allegations as a weapon. Once they (police, legislators, administrators, etc) gained that power, all kinds of things suddenly became abuse, including consensual sexual activity. "Think of the children" tends to be code for "figure out how to leverage the children".
    - phs318u 7y ago
      > Reality is that most adults in authority didn't give a crap about child abuse until they could use abuse allegations as a weapon. Even if that's true about "adults in authority", doesn't make it true about adults in general, and I'd be very, very surprised if it's generally true about adults that are parents. I also find it ironic, that some seem to see the unwarranted, power-imbalance-driven exercise of authority over other adults, as more heinous and egregious, than the unwarranted, power-imbalance-driven exercise of (sexual) authority over children. EDIT: added a missing N and a missing comma.
      - WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
        I agree that parents aren't the primary beneficiaries of the power that comes from modern child abuse allegations (nor are non-connected adults). They are a critical source of that power, however. For context, I'd like to note that prior to outrage being the pregurgitated social response for child abuse, parents didn't really have any go-to reactions prepared for them. It wasn't uncommon for parents feelings of shame and confusion to push them toward quarantining their child (exasperating that child's sense of isolation and fault). It certainly wasn't standard was for parents to seek justice for the perpetrator. My 20th century American experience is that authority wasn't there to advocate for children who've been mistreated. Most egregiously, police - who society specifically entrusted with the responsibility of stopping child abuse - weren't known as people that abused children could reach out to for protection. If they had been, child abuse scandals wouldn't have progressed far beyond the original victim. But once child abuse could be leveraged into gobs of power, suddenly child abuse advocates were loudly everywhere.
        phs318u 7y ago
        > But once child abuse could be leveraged into gobs of power, suddenly child abuse advocates were loudly everywhere. Or, alternatively, those parents (who as you rightly point out, in previous generations, didn't really have anywhere to go), and more importantly, the victims, realised that speaking out didn't come with as high a social cost as previously thought. And that when they did speak out, the many people who would have had little, if any, exposure to this kind of thing, were horrified at the detail. I'd also add, that in the past, many "beat cops" would have been at a loss as to how to deal with these issues. Of all crimes reported, police apparently hated "domestics" the most, as there was no clear guidelines for them to follow. It's very easy for people to ascribe other causes to these things when you have little experience with kids, and no experience with abuse. Not everything is a deep-state ploy to entrench power and control. EDITED: their > there. And a bunch of other grammatical errors. Seriously, why do I always spot a mistake after I've hit submit?
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Note that they went after a contemporary pop star, Cliff Richard, who by the way was completely exonerated.
- verylittlemeat 7y ago
  >Starr’s conquests include David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Mick Jagger just to name three. But her favorite is said to have been Robert Plant from Led Zeppelin. It's illegal and morally questionable but statutory rape isn't forcibly raping someone. I know there's plenty of outrage culture in "rape is rape" but I think it's definitely a distinction worth noting.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Do you sincerely think physical force is the only way an adult man could coerce a child to have sex with him? The whole point of statutory rape laws is to acknowledge that children are taught that adults have power over them and need to be protected from adults who abuse that power for sex.

So sex drugs and rock and roll arent cool anymore? Come off it. Living life isnt for everyone.

malvosenior 7y ago

Yes, sex with underage girls isn't cool. Not sure I'd call that "living life" more like extinguishing it.

phs318u 7y ago

Really? Cos you haven’t lived until you’ve bedded a deluded 15 year old? Spare me.

mieseratte 7y ago
Based on my reading of the article, she was 13 when Iggy slept with her and knew that fact. That’s a bit materially different than standard rock-and-roll excess. Were age of consent laws less of a thing back in his day? Edit: Seems as though this should’ve been / is a crime?[0] [0] - http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24 http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...
- WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
  On reflection, most adults didn't care much about underage sex until they were able to leveraged it into public outrage - and therefore power for themselves. The proof of this lies with pre-1980s generations of child sex abuse victims, who knew (or quickly learned) to not go to adults in authority - especially police. At best, they could be expect to be ignored, marginalized and/or gaslighted. At worst could be more abuse, even if 'only' verbal, physical, etc. Reality is that most adults in authority didn't give a crap about child abuse until they could use abuse allegations as a weapon. Once they (police, legislators, administrators, etc) gained that power, all kinds of things suddenly became abuse, including consensual sexual activity. "Think of the children" tends to be code for "figure out how to leverage the children".
  - phs318u 7y ago
    > Reality is that most adults in authority didn't give a crap about child abuse until they could use abuse allegations as a weapon. Even if that's true about "adults in authority", doesn't make it true about adults in general, and I'd be very, very surprised if it's generally true about adults that are parents. I also find it ironic, that some seem to see the unwarranted, power-imbalance-driven exercise of authority over other adults, as more heinous and egregious, than the unwarranted, power-imbalance-driven exercise of (sexual) authority over children. EDIT: added a missing N and a missing comma.
    - WarOnPrivacy 7y ago
      I agree that parents aren't the primary beneficiaries of the power that comes from modern child abuse allegations (nor are non-connected adults). They are a critical source of that power, however. For context, I'd like to note that prior to outrage being the pregurgitated social response for child abuse, parents didn't really have any go-to reactions prepared for them. It wasn't uncommon for parents feelings of shame and confusion to push them toward quarantining their child (exasperating that child's sense of isolation and fault). It certainly wasn't standard was for parents to seek justice for the perpetrator. My 20th century American experience is that authority wasn't there to advocate for children who've been mistreated. Most egregiously, police - who society specifically entrusted with the responsibility of stopping child abuse - weren't known as people that abused children could reach out to for protection. If they had been, child abuse scandals wouldn't have progressed far beyond the original victim. But once child abuse could be leveraged into gobs of power, suddenly child abuse advocates were loudly everywhere.
      - phs318u 7y ago
        > But once child abuse could be leveraged into gobs of power, suddenly child abuse advocates were loudly everywhere. Or, alternatively, those parents (who as you rightly point out, in previous generations, didn't really have anywhere to go), and more importantly, the victims, realised that speaking out didn't come with as high a social cost as previously thought. And that when they did speak out, the many people who would have had little, if any, exposure to this kind of thing, were horrified at the detail. I'd also add, that in the past, many "beat cops" would have been at a loss as to how to deal with these issues. Of all crimes reported, police apparently hated "domestics" the most, as there was no clear guidelines for them to follow. It's very easy for people to ascribe other causes to these things when you have little experience with kids, and no experience with abuse. Not everything is a deep-state ploy to entrench power and control. EDITED: their > there. And a bunch of other grammatical errors. Seriously, why do I always spot a mistake after I've hit submit?
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Note that they went after a contemporary pop star, Cliff Richard, who by the way was completely exonerated.
verylittlemeat 7y ago
>Starr’s conquests include David Bowie, Iggy Pop, and Mick Jagger just to name three. But her favorite is said to have been Robert Plant from Led Zeppelin. It's illegal and morally questionable but statutory rape isn't forcibly raping someone. I know there's plenty of outrage culture in "rape is rape" but I think it's definitely a distinction worth noting.
- smt88 7y ago
  Do you sincerely think physical force is the only way an adult man could coerce a child to have sex with him? The whole point of statutory rape laws is to acknowledge that children are taught that adults have power over them and need to be protected from adults who abuse that power for sex.