should we be lumping gary glitter, r kelly, jerry lee lewis, bill wyman & god knows how many others ALL in the pop-paedos dumper?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

im thinking about this after reading this debate on a david bowie message board. should they all be treated as equally sick fux? is led zep sleeping with hundreds of teenage groupies the same as what bill wyman and mandy smith did? is what bill did in the same ballpark as what gary glitter did? etc etc etc

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=8980&messageid=1090765449&lp=1090957411

― thesplooge (thesplooge), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

eww "pop-paedos"

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe Michael Jackson = gay Jerry Lee Lewis

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

The day we start thinking that everybody convicted of paedophilia has the same motivation, mentality and social ethics is the day the gutter press has won.

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

rock n ro-oll (HEY) rock n roll

― sexyDancer (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

re: noodle vague -- or worse, everyone accused of such.

― Joseph McCombs, Tuesday, 27 July 2004 19:42 (twenty-one years ago)

is Mr Lewis's only crime to date marrying his 13 year old cousin back in the mid 50s or has he done the kiddie nastie more than that?

― lukey (Lukey G), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 07:17 (twenty-one years ago)

should they all be treated as equally sick fux?

Can you really compare all those different acts and say they're all the same? A proper understanding of what motivates paedophilia and some acknowledgement that our society is complicit in helping to create what it so detests might be a better place to start. And no, that doesn't mean you let people get away with it.

Also: Michael Jackson hasn't been convicted of anything yet, so I don't think accusation should be a proof of guilt.

True, if he IS guilty, its an abuse of trust and displays qualities that I wouldn't really admire in an artist but then, people still seem to like James Brown and look what he's been up to over the years. Why doesn't the fact that Snoop Doggy Dogg killed someone rate as high as the fact that Gary Glitter downloaded some pictures? Why should the one end someone's career and the other enhance it? I'm not claiming that Gary Glitter should still be recording - just wondering why there isn't more consistency here.

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:27 (twenty-one years ago)

also is the fact they're all pop stars relevant at all?

― the neurotic awakening of s (blueski), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:29 (twenty-one years ago)

And...if you're REALLY going to take a stand on this issue - you might want to throw away any band or artist that encourages the sexualising of children - I can think of several from the British Mainstream right now. And you might not want to stop there - what about young adults? Does the fact that someone is 16 mean that they no longer appeal to paedophilic tendencies?

I quite fancy some of the members of V. Should I throw myself away?

― hobart paving (hobart paving), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 08:38 (twenty-one years ago)

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