Suddenly you find out your idol is a creep/doping user/paedophile/something bad! What do you do?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Note: this is a purely hypothetical question. I don't remember how this came up exactly, but we were talking about fans and idols and supporters at work (I think we started talking about cycling/soccer fans and how they continue to support their idols even though they're proven doping users/corrupt match sellers - the cycling doping example was somehow quietly accepted because "everyone does it and nobody can ride a tour de france like that without cheating") and someone brought up this example of something that isn't publicly known:

Say you suddenly find out from someone who knows them intimately (or another extremely reliable source) that your favourite actor/singer/sporter/politician/director/writer/whatever, whose stuff you've liked and collected for years and years, whose name/logo/signature/mascotte is tattooed on your back in 40 inch letters or something, is very secretly into teenage boys (or some other repulsive and illegal thing that should be kept extremely secret).

What do you do?

Do you stop liking their work/team?
Do you throw out/destroy/sell their albums/DVD's/memorabilia/books/whatever?
Do you try to discredit the source and automatically proclaim your idol to be innocent because you're a fan even though you weren't all that surprised when you heard it?
Do you continue to like their stuff/work because the work/products/movies/albums/sporting achievements are what you're a fan of, not the person behind them (even though you consider yourself a hypocrite if you're actually going to think that way - on the one hand, it really doesn't matter who the person behind it is in private, but you're indirectly supporting someone who you now know does things you can't possibly condone just because you're a fan of their work/movies/achievements/books/whatever)?
Do you somehow try to suppress the knowledge (is that even possible?) because it's not out in the open (and most likely won't ever be) and you only heard it by accident?
Other suggestions?

In short: how would you handle such a hypothetical situation?

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:08 (eighteen years ago)

Any Gary Glitter/ Jonathan King/ Chris Langham fans care to comment?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:09 (eighteen years ago)

It would put me off them immediately.

― C J, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:09 (eighteen years ago)

off their work too? (The Leader Of The Gang isn't suddenly a bad song because he did something, is it?)

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:12 (eighteen years ago)

when i asked ciara recently about what she felt about everything that had happened to (her childhood hero) michael jackson recently, she said something along the lines of "i bet everyone criticising him now still dances to 'billie jean'"

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:15 (eighteen years ago)

Nothing could ever put me off "Rock 'n' Roll Pt. 1"

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:16 (eighteen years ago)

i neither assume that artists whose work i like are good people, and nor do i need them to be

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:16 (eighteen years ago)

with sports & drugs it's different, kind of, the only sportsperson i've been a 'fan' of who was done for doping was sesil karantantcheva. i'm still a fan of her but she was only 15 when she got banned (and tried to use pregnancy as an excuse for the nandrolone in her body!), so i'm blaming it on her dodgy team rather than her own moral failings

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

Wouldn't it feel very weird though? Wouldn't you start looking for clues in their work? (er... this won't work for sporting examples, I guess - "is he taking that penalty in a paedophile way?")

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

karatantcheva, not karantantcheva

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

It would put me off them as a person, but that's not the same as continuing to appreciate their work. I think that's two completely separate things.

― C J, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

i neither assume that artists whose work i like are good people, and nor do i need them to be

OTM, I mean, Lou Reed... LOL!

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:19 (eighteen years ago)

As usual in such matters, I invoke what I call Larkin's Law - celebrate the art, try to forget the artist.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:24 (eighteen years ago)

Wouldn't that make you feel dirty/hypocritical/as though you were condoning what they do?

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:27 (eighteen years ago)

On the other hand: where's the line between what's allowed and what isn't?

Drugs? Everyone who's in the public eye does them, not a problem.
Rapper who shoots someone? Oh well, it's hip hop, isn't it?
Singer who touches little boy's wee wee? Too far! Not allowed!
Writer who shoots his wife? (Burroughs) No problem, accident!
Producer who shoots someone? (don't know yet, will await trial result)

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:31 (eighteen years ago)

― Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:32 (eighteen years ago)

No because the art is what lives on and not the artist.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:32 (eighteen years ago)

illegal thing that should be kept extremely secret

heh

― blueski, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:32 (eighteen years ago)

(xpost x 2)

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:33 (eighteen years ago)

You really need to sort out this xpost business.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:33 (eighteen years ago)

And then there's Bill Wyman...

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:34 (eighteen years ago)

Forgot about this one, too:

[Removed Illegal Link]

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:36 (eighteen years ago)

duh

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:36 (eighteen years ago)

Murderer Joe Meek.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

Murderer and sexual predator

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

... to be precise

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:37 (eighteen years ago)

These are the perils of idolisation. The problem isn't with the idol (all are made of clay) but with the process of idolisation.

It is often hard to separate art from its creator - especially when that fan dynamic of I want to fuck him/I want to *be* him comes into play.

And the problem is, so much of art's impact depends on its emotional impact. If an artist's lifestyle and badness negates the emotional impact, it's hard to willingly suspend disbelief.

I mean, my 20-odd year irrational worship of Bobby Gillespie evaportated almost overnight when I found out from multiple independent sources about his history of violence towards women. That just kind of destroys the appeal. And so much of the appeal of his band has been based on finding him the incarnation of cool or sex or whatever - if you can no longer find him sexy or cool, then their image is no longer that interesting.

― Masonic Boom, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:40 (eighteen years ago)

Classic rockist example: the hands which played that piano refrain on the second part of "Layla" are the same hands the musician subsequently used to strangle his mother.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:43 (eighteen years ago)

Gary Glitter's classic tracks still get plenty of airing, it keeps him in dough enough to live on.

However, his back catalogue is, um, littered with 'dubious' tracks that were'nt as 'innocent' as they seemed, and even less so now: Check "Happy Birthday" from his "Touch Me" album...

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:44 (eighteen years ago)

Where do they get aired precisely? Even dishy Dale nimbly sidesteps his records whenever they crop up on Pick Of The Pops, even if they're at number two or three after he's said he'll play the top ten in full.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:45 (eighteen years ago)

Football matches (American), he must get tons of royalties from the US for public performances of "R&R2"

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:58 (eighteen years ago)

Well, I can't forget the artist. Take Spector: no matter how much I still enjoy his production, I will forever think of the negative aspects of his life. The same with Michael Jackson, I can't erase the *freak* he is now. You could say it's wrong but I think that art comes from a person, so I think the personality has an impact on his work so I want to know about it. And I let it influence my judgment of his work.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:00 (eighteen years ago)

Buh buh but more importantly, Stan, what DO YOU KNOW? :-D Tom Barman loves kiddies? ;-)

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:01 (eighteen years ago)

I don't know anything, it's a hypothetical example. But suppose he did, would you stop listening do dEUS?

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:03 (eighteen years ago)

Well Iggy Pop was banging Ron Asheton's 14 year old sister and he still plays in a band with him!

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:04 (eighteen years ago)

I can still listen to Spector because of the genius of the people he was working *with* - I listen to the Ronettes now, thinking what an amazing survivor Ronnie is, not about him.

― Masonic Boom, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:05 (eighteen years ago)

... or was it Fred "Sonic" Smith?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:06 (eighteen years ago)

Joe Meek sounds like he was one heck of a git.

But then, if he wasn;t the person he was, he'd not have made those records!

Ditto Spector.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:10 (eighteen years ago)

Joe was barking, he couldn't help himself

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:12 (eighteen years ago)

Joe was holloway, not barking.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:17 (eighteen years ago)

Totally Holloway

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:17 (eighteen years ago)

JERRY LEE LEWIS PEOPLE

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

This isn't a music example, but Sylvia Plath was really an unbearable cow from everything I've read (inc her own journals, Ted Hughes' stuff etc). I suppose in a way she couldn't help it, but I read her journals and want to slap her silly. That said, I think her later/last poetry was pretty brilliant. So yeah - separate the art from the artist I think. We'd be bereft of heroes otherwise.

― Trayce, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:20 (eighteen years ago)

well they're not heroes, and they shouldn't be idols. they're artists.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:24 (eighteen years ago)

OK maybe heroes isnt the best word, but what is the point of admiring an artist if you don't at least elevate what they've created (if not them)?

― Trayce, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:27 (eighteen years ago)

Well, with 'heroes' you search for part of yourself within them.

With 'art' you search for a part of yourself within it.

Or so.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

The "separate art from artist" theory of course assumes that the appeal comes solely from records, movies, books, etc. Which is a very alien way of thinking to me - it takes away all the mythology. Kris Kristofferson taking a helicopter to get to Johnny Cash's property to play him "Sunday Mornin Coming Down", the Sex Pistols on Grundy, no one knowing a plot detail of "The Big Sleep" - these things contribute considerably to my enjoyment of the respective artist's work. And considering how many stories there are about Byron, Voltaire, Mark Twain...it's not like these anecdotes don't often survive as long, or even longer, as the art does.

― Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:37 (eighteen years ago)

I agree to be honest. There are artists I love as much because of who they are and the things they do (Richard D James and his tank, anyone?) as I do their work. This perhaps gets into the Barthes "death of the author" thing, possibly, which I find doesn't always apply to my way of appreciating some artists (not all).

― Trayce, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:46 (eighteen years ago)

Is Mr Grout a closet M People fan?

I didn't know about Kristofferson and the helicopter. That lack of background knowledge doesn't make Cash's recording any less great.

Similarly I never saw the Pistols on Grundy until many years later - people forget that that only went out live in the London area. That didn't preclude me from responding passionately to their music.

What the listener gets out of music is as important, and in many cases arguably more important, than what the musician puts into it.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:49 (eighteen years ago)

But Marcello, what I'm saying isn't that you can't enjoy stuff without the context - just that the context can *add* to the enjoyment that's already there. How is what some artist says in interviews any less valid a companion piece to a record than, say, cover art or liner notes?

Obviously all these anecdotes are *also* as much about what the listener gets out of them as what the people were actually thinking when they did it, so no argument there.

― Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

Is Mr Grout a closet M People fan?

Marcello Carlin on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:49 (30 minutes ago)

TS: Searching for the hero inside yrsel Vs Searching for yrsel inside teh hero.

Or, is it so funny misspelling words on purpose thread party fears two.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:21 (eighteen years ago)

Quote from Nick Cave from that otherwise pointless Jarvis OMM round table discussion last year:

"The other thing about music that I really like ... when I was a kid there was no real information about music. You got a record with a cover - and you didn't really know much about the band - and you put the record on and stared at the cover and that's pretty much all the information you had, and these people were heroes. They were mysterious, heroic people ... And the internet and everything else has taken a certain amount of that away.

The mystique is disappearing. Now that might be a good thing or a bad thing, but for me, I don't want to know everything. I want the people I really love to remain difficult to get to."

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:24 (eighteen years ago)

My head teacher was a bit of an idol to me. He was the first teacher who thought I could achieve something other than being the class clown. He was the first teacher not lash out when I did something minorly stupid. He turned my results around from abysmal to enough to get me into university by putting me with the right teachers. He had discussions with you rather than slanging matches. All in all me and the rest of the school thought he was pretty cool - he even had a Harley...Turns out he was also buying photos of boys getting changed (taken by another teacher). When I think of him I still think of him more positively than negatively. What he did was stupid (at the very least) but he also undoubtedly had a positive impact on me and (at least) some of my friends.

― Notinmyname, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:39 (eighteen years ago)

But suppose he did, would you stop listening do dEUS?

No, but I would definitely think less of the man. I'm not saying he should be perfect, but I couldn't forgive a heinous act like pedohelia. That'd stain my image of him. Nick Cave is right though, there's less mystique, but as I'm a big Pop/Entertainment/Gossip fan, I don't think it's a necessarily bad thing.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:46 (eighteen years ago)

it's the old "peaedo's make the best child carers" dichotomie.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:46 (eighteen years ago)

I think I kind of agree with the Lex and Marcello, both. There's nobody in the artistic world I really 'idolise', maybe because I'm old enough to know that there's a good chance that if they're making really good art, there's possibly something else going on there as well. There's a selfishness to a lot of really good art, something that makes you believe that what you have is worthwhile enough to spend time on it to the exclusion of other things and possibly despite the disapproval of other people. And sometimes that can lead people to be selfish in other areas of their life too, and can lead them to be blind to behaviour that would be considered unacceptable in other people.

Of course, there's also the so-called 'diva' behaviour, which makes people think everything they do is okay because they have money, but it's not quite the same thing.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that I'm often not surprised when people whose work I like turn out to be gits. On the other hand, I would be very, very disappointed if I discovered that, say, Paul Bettany was actually some kind of woman-beating loon, because he always seems so nice.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:51 (eighteen years ago)

Classic rockist example: the hands which played that piano refrain on the second part of "Layla" are the same hands the musician subsequently used to strangle his mother.

Marcello Carlin on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:43 (2 hours ago)

But he was a schizophrenic (and I think he actually beat her to death with a hammer - not that that makes any differnce) which I think makes it a difficult comparison.

― Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:55 (eighteen years ago)

Nick Cave OTM, I think.

We're fans of the public persona people have, even though that's an act (punkrocker Iggy goes off stage, puts on a designer suit, becomes Jim and goes golfing, and we don't care), except when something very bad happens (both Paul Gadd and Gary Glitter have lost all credibility, even though it was only Gadd who did it while he wasn't playing Glitter at the time)?

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:58 (eighteen years ago)

Beat her to death with a hammer then stamped on her face... I think coffee was involved too

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 12:58 (eighteen years ago)

noooo!!!! and I liked coffee so much before I knew this :-(

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

if they're making really good art, there's possibly something else going on there as well.

I not only consider this to be a myth/misconception but I also don't like to make excuses when it comes to artists I like. What I'm saying: I like to see them still as human and I expect the same from them as my friends: I dislike anyone who is guilty of (certain) crimes.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:05 (eighteen years ago)

By the way:

"Glitter was convicted" - no he wasn't, Glitter is the guy on stage who makes music and has a lot of fans, the guy who was convicted was Paul Gadd.

Or is this hypocrisy at work (fans could be using this explanation to justify their continued support, for instance) ?

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:06 (eighteen years ago)

Gossip rags already existed when Nick Cave was growing up, I'm suspicious of this garden of Eden he claims to have lost. I mean yeah there's more info now, but there's more info on everything pretty much.

We're fans of the public persona people have, even though that's an act (punkrocker Iggy goes off stage, puts on a designer suit, becomes Jim and goes golfing, and we don't care), except when something very bad happens (both Paul Gadd and Gary Glitter have lost all credibility, even though it was only Gadd who did it while he wasn't playing Glitter at the time)?

I dunno tho, golfing is *part* of Iggy's public persona for me. Pretty much everything we know about any given celeb would have to be, by definition, no?

― Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:11 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, you're right, it is.

Actor/role isn't quite the same as ordinary guy/rock star.

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:15 (eighteen years ago)

Gossip rags already existed when Nick Cave was growing up

He was talking about rockbands. I hardly think gossip (or information) was that readily available for him (living outside the US/England at the time). Internet *has* brought us closer together.

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:26 (eighteen years ago)

He was big on T-Rex and Bowie, who certainly did everything they ever could to get into the tabloids.

― Daniel_Rf, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:36 (eighteen years ago)

I hate him now, the lying bastard. ;-)

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:37 (eighteen years ago)

It is of course not inconceivable that Mr Cave may have lost touch slightly with the magic of new music, at the ripe old age of 73...

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:39 (eighteen years ago)

Well, count him lucky then. The dribble I hear ont he radio. Blergh. I really need to go find me some good records. Marcello, HELP ME OUT HERE. I also have lost touch (due to baby, oops, babies).

― nathalie, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:40 (eighteen years ago)

Tabloids weren't as interested in rock stars - or celebrities in general, in fact... or gossip, for that matter - as they are now

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:41 (eighteen years ago)

Babyshambles? (they're a decent recent band with a nice clean young lead singer who never does anything wrong (apparently, he can't get convicted, that is) )

― StanM, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:43 (eighteen years ago)

... there you go, I doubt the lead singers of Blodwyn Pig or Atomic Rooster or whatever, got as much coverage as Pete Doherty does now

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 13:44 (eighteen years ago)

Well, count him lucky then. The dribble I hear ont he radio. Blergh. I really need to go find me some good records. Marcello, HELP ME OUT HERE. I also have lost touch (due to baby, oops, babies).

A good place to start would be the new El-P album (out here yesterday) which is every bit as seismic as Fantastic Damage.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

everything i've ever heard by el-p = boooooooring

listen to the new hilary duff single instead!

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:19 (eighteen years ago)

Lex, fuck off.

Nath: also the new Arcade Fire, plus Apostle Of Hustle, Sollilaquists Of Sound and Strange Fruit Project - all great albums.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:23 (eighteen years ago)

A difference of opinion here, Geoffrey.

― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)

Falling out of love with Dave Sim after the genius of "High Society" and "Church & State" was weird and sad.

― Rock Hardy, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

To reverse the question, what if somebody you already hate for being creepy/paedophilic/all round bad egg starts producing really great work? If Ian Huntley recorded an amazing electro single would you dance to it? If the man who stole your wife wrote a lovely book that made you cry would you put in in your end of year lists?

― Slumpman, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:35 (eighteen years ago)

You mean, like, if Bono put out a good record?

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

If the man who stole your wife wrote a lovely book that made you cry would you put in in your end of year lists?

Ghost of Kingsley Amis to thread.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

no because he was an artist before he was a cunt (i assume)

― Slumpman, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

Read it again.

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

Which one?

― Mark G, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

When you assume you make an ass out of u and me

― Tom D., Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:42 (eighteen years ago)

Is that a line off the new Beyonce album?

― Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:43 (eighteen years ago)

You can ignore them if you like, but idf they're REALLY good, the art will endure while the cult of the artist goes away, even if said artist is really a nasty piece of work. Gauguin, Larkin, Wagner etc.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:45 (eighteen years ago)

er my post was xpost to Tom D. I don't think Amis is a cunt.

― Slumpman, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

People tend to idolize the sort of person they wish to be. Because they do not yet measure up to their own desires, they seek out models to pattern themselves after. Those chosen models become their idols.

When you discover that your idol is not what you believed him or her to be, you can't help but be disillusioned. The next step is to realize that the illusions you just lost were not the operative part of what you saw in that person. If the ideals you were seeking for yourself within that person were valid, then you still have them within yourself as goals or potentials. In that case, the thing to do next is to become your own ideal person.

If the ideals you were seeking in that person were worthless becuase the person really did embody them, but was no better off for it, then becoming disillusioned in them is probably a good thing, and the sooner you reform your goals the better. In that case the next thing to do is move on to something better.

― Aimless, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

Thank you Scott bleeding Peck.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 08:36 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think I've ever really idolised anyone. And so the worst that's ever happened to me is being in the front row of a Fall gig and realising Mark E. Smith smells of wee. I still love the Fall, though.

If the man who stole your wife wrote a lovely book that made you cry would you put in in your end of year lists?

This is a really lovely phrase. Except I can't stop hearing it sung in the style of Belle and Sebastian.

― emil.y, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 09:29 (eighteen years ago)

What about when you discover that one of your personal mentors/idols is not worthy of your respect because of some fatal flaw? I just discovered that one of the people I had the highest esteem for thinks the Iraq war was a good idea and that George Bush's heart is in the right place. I can't look him in the eye anymore. I thought he was smart, but I just respect anyone who believes blindly in Shrub. I should know better than to put anyone on a pedestal.

As for celebrities, sometimes their foibles can make them more human and likable (mild drug or alcohol problems) or more amusing (Eddie Murphy's love of cross-dressing), but when deviant (paedo) or violent tendencies (beating up de wimmins) or racist tendencies come to the surface, they lose me.

― Maria :D, Thursday, 22 March 2007 00:03 (eighteen years ago)

don't respect, that is.

― Maria :D, Thursday, 22 March 2007 00:03 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

Dwain Chambers answers his critics

― James Mitchell, Monday, 9 February 2009 18:20 (sixteen years ago)

seven years pass...

Radar Online Says It Has Identified an A-List Actor Involved in a Pedophile Sex Ring

― Le Bateau Ivre, Monday, 19 September 2016 15:03 (nine years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.