I read this and my jaw kind of dropped.

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie

I saw Almost Famous, but I've never really heard anything about this scene or the notion of Baby Groupies.

Were rock stars like David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Alice Cooper, etc. rapist or is it more complicated than that? Were times different?

Yahoo News had an article entitled "The Complicated Sexual History of David Bowie". Is that a pass to frame it like that?

We gonna talk about it or let it lay there?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

yo, thats crazy

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

yeah, pretty much. wow.

The Flour budget for the show is going to be through the roof.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

motherfuckers waited until he died to talk about it.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I NEVER heard about this shit but 20 minutes after he dies 10 people run online to tel this story.

Smh... now I see why maxxxxx is mad as shit. lol

I dug him but didn't count myself a fan so I haven't read about him in years. Since his death I've read quite a few pieces about him.

A recently dead celebrity generates clicks.

It's not that deep. When a celebrity is in the news (whether it's a death or promoting a new movie, etc.) you are going to get more positive stories and more negative stories.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I expect that type of info to resurface when people are discussing Kells and Cosby and Polanski and Woody Allen

it's a crazy story, I would think someone would speak on it before 2016.

just smells like they waited for death instead of putting him in blast.

my question is why did they wait?

to get into any trouble. reading the article, she had fond memories of alladat.

i was answering the specific question at the end of "why did she wait?"

seems like somebody's mama or whoever (i don't care enough to know the details of the kellz situation(s)) had an issue with kellz and the girl(s) to make it public.

and like has also been mentioned here many times, different time/era and folks reacted differently to these things, as wrong as that may be/sound.

(I don't want to screw up your timeline again, just go look for yourself)

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Since it was specifically brought up to catch steam with all the Bowie articles since his death; its not as if Jimmy Page was in the title of the two or three articles I saw that covered it in the last 3 days.

Its tough call; apparently it was a threesome with his wife and at the time considering the drugs/environment was probably 'acceptable'.

However, just because Jim Crow was legal doesn't mean people doing it weren't assholes, lol.

I do think painting him as a mean spirited sexual predator is wrong; considering he had no problem admitting his fuckups after the fact (He was sprouting some fascist/borderline anti-semetic shit going 'full retard' with one of his personas that he disavowed later). Dude was still in his early 20's and obviously grew.

It's going to be interesting as we grow older and more things like these happen because of the internet and how things don't die.

>
>
>
>I read this and my jaw kind of dropped.
>
>https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie
>
>I saw Almost Famous, but I've never really heard anything
>about this scene or the notion of Baby Groupies.
>
>Were rock stars like David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, Rod
>Stewart, Alice Cooper, etc. rapist or is it more complicated
>than that? Were times different?
>
>Yahoo News had an article entitled "The Complicated Sexual
>History of David Bowie". Is that a pass to frame it like
>that?
>
>We gonna talk about it or let it lay there?
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I mean the way the girls describe it, they were the predators seeking out rock stars....but they are 14 and 15.

And their were magazines totally devoted to these baby groupies.

It just seems like a totally alien mindset.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Like I remember when Britney Spears came out the gate a fully formed pop star at 16 and Rolling Stone had no problem having her doing Stuff/Maxim level photoshoots:

https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/britney.jpg

and she actually looks her age in that picture.

Similar to how even though there was this backlash after Tyga admitted they were dating that Kylie girl was out there selling magazines doing the fuckable face pout/titties almost out.





>I mean the way the girls describe it, they were the

to kiss his Black ass.

This will be the beginning. There will be more of these stories than many of us are probably prepared to hear. Sickening all the way around.

Let's not fry one man and deify others regardless of their contributions to culture.

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE!

The problem with this^^^is dude was still doing his "thing" in the early 2000....

It was never about Kelly simply sleeping with young girls...It was the issue that young girls seemed to be a pattern for him....Plural...

Yeah the difference is one was doing it in the 2000s and another was doing it in the 70s but the act is the same act (even though it is clearly more frowned upon now).

It takes alot of parsing to find a meaningful difference between what Kellz and Bowie and the 70 dudes were doing.

To put another way, contemporaries may judge what they are doing differently, but they are doing the same thing. The question is does that make what one did more wrong than the other?



>
>
>The problem with this^^^is dude was still doing his "thing" in
>the early 2000....
>
>It was never about Kelly simply sleeping with young girls...It
>was the issue that young girls seemed to be a pattern for
>him....Plural...


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Yeah the difference is one was doing it in the 2000s and
>another was doing it in the 70s but the act is the same act
>(even though it is clearly more frowned upon now).

It's all about context (as u rightly started the era means a lot...)

But let's not be naive. It's also about if said music act had shown a pattern of such behavior....


>It takes alot of parsing to find a meaningful difference
>between what Kellz and Bowie and the 70 dudes were doing.

Nah..no parsing...A rock star having a threesome with his wife and 14-15 groupie is some pretty shocking shocking shit...But in the 70s that shit was like having breakfast for most music acts...

Like I said below....Marvin Gaye, Chuck Berry and P-Funk all was involved with either obscene activity or underaged groupies and girls...And no one is talking about their dirt...No one cares...

Kelly's issue is he was still going at his young girl obsessions long after such activity was frowned upon...Like early 2000.....The new social media age we are in makes it tough to get away with more recent behavior like that...

is sickening regardless of the era in which it occurred.

If it wasn't morally sickening or illegal, there would have never been an age of consent which emboldens any law against such act.

So, honestly, my hope is that all of these bastards' dirt start to fall out of the ceilings. If we getting ready to PUBLICLY burn Cosby at the stake, PUBLICLY burn them all.

but this won't happen.

But people are not mad at Kellz because he had sex with little girls....They mad because he was taped having sex with a little girl and had a line of paid off accusers who refused to come out in court and still managed to skate...

In the 1800-1900's, women were mere property...Slavery was the law....And getting married to your 15 year old cousin was not al all shocking...President Roosevelt was involved with his own cousin...And that was in the 20's or 30's?

Well, guess what? these things are NOW frowned upon...

A rock star giving pills and coke to 14-15 old groupie was not shocking in the 70s...A rock star doing the same thing in 2000 up is indeed shocking...

If you want to be mad at a double standard be mad at social media (twitter, instagram. blogs, etc...)...

Trust me....If that dude from Maroon 5 and his wife decided to do a threesome with a 14 year old girl TODAY dude's career would be finished...

and has made several sexually-charged songs and videos in the wake of the allegations against him. further, he has not admitted any wrongdoing nor taken any steps to address his potential problem. folks consider him a predator in part b/c he was known to actually seek out underage girls for sex - he's been known to frequent teen hangout spots looking for girls to bang. i assume he also banged some underage girls who threw themselves at him. some of the girls Kellz banged or their parents later sued him and he settled cases.

Bowie doesn't seem like a predator b/c AFAIK he only had sex w/one girl so the kid rape thing wasn't a pattern. also, the girl who's the subject of this story was hanging at clubs on the Sunset Strip - a particularly adult environment as opposed to a teen hangout spot. finally, the girl says she was into the sex and to this day she's not complaining about it and says it was a 'beautiful' event.

so i can understand some of the difference in the reaction to the Kellz story and the Bowie story.

>and has made several sexually-charged songs and videos in the
>wake of the allegations against him. further, he has not
>admitted any wrongdoing nor taken any steps to address his
>potential problem. folks consider him a predator in part b/c
>he was known to actually seek out underage girls for sex -
>he's been known to frequent teen hangout spots looking for
>girls to bang. i assume he also banged some underage girls
>who threw themselves at him. some of the girls Kellz banged
>or their parents later sued him and he settled cases.
>
>Bowie doesn't seem like a predator b/c AFAIK he only had sex
>w/one girl so the kid rape thing wasn't a pattern. also, the
>girl who's the subject of this story was hanging at clubs on
>the Sunset Strip - a particularly adult environment as opposed
>to a teen hangout spot. finally, the girl says she was into
>the sex and to this day she's not complaining about it and
>says it was a 'beautiful' event.
>
>so i can understand some of the difference in the reaction to
>the Kellz story and the Bowie story.

I mean yeah^^^ to all this...

Especially Robert...I'm from the Chi...I know the same folks he knows...My cousin played bass for him...

I remember him coming up to the high schools when he was in his early 20's...And that was him going after his older young girl demographic...Usually Kellz would meet up with girls in parking lots and McDonalds...Like u said...actively seeking out 13-16 year olds...

Context and eras...That's what this debate is about....

>Bowie doesn't seem like a predator b/c AFAIK he only had sex
>w/one girl so the kid rape thing wasn't a pattern. also, the
>girl who's the subject of this story was hanging at clubs on
>the Sunset Strip - a particularly adult environment as opposed
>to a teen hangout spot. finally, the girl says she was into
>the sex and to this day she's not complaining about it and
>says it was a 'beautiful' event.
>
>so i can understand some of the difference in the reaction to
>the Kellz story and the Bowie story.


it's cool?

OK!

...

Who knows...?

But I know they got paid not to talk...I know there were more than 11...I know that dude actively went after 13 year olds...Went to high schools, took his "girls" to McDonalds...Even started dating one of his biggest supporters and best friends's daughters when she hit 21. The problem? That was his god daughter he had known since she was like 7....

>
>
>Who knows...?
>
>But I know they got paid not to talk...I know there were more
>than 11...I know that dude actively went after 13 year
>olds...Went to high schools, took his "girls" to
>McDonalds...Even started dating one of his biggest supporters
>and best friends's daughters when she hit 21. The problem?
>That was his god daughter he had known since she was like
>7....
>


He cruised the Strip knowing full well these girls were there. No different from Kelly or any other of these perverted mf'ers.


None of the details really matter to me as a grown man and a father. Point blank, a motherfucker who has sex with underage girls, regardless of how many times it has happened, is sick regardless of their contributions to culture. I don't care if the girl is throwing it at the man. He needs to step the fuck off. PERIOD!

>>
>>
>>Who knows...?
>>
>>But I know they got paid not to talk...I know there were
>more
>>than 11...I know that dude actively went after 13 year
>>olds...Went to high schools, took his "girls" to
>>McDonalds...Even started dating one of his biggest
>supporters
>>and best friends's daughters when she hit 21. The problem?
>>That was his god daughter he had known since she was like
>>7....
>>
>
>
>He cruised the Strip knowing full well these girls were there.
>No different from Kelly or any other of these perverted
>mf'ers.


Actually no...Bowie and other rockers/soul acts at that time was on some LET THEM COME TO US...The club scene was wild but adult on the Strip...But just from reading about those times back then, those same clubs would let in the groupies, even with fake ID's and such...

Basically, groupie culture in the 70s was highlly celebrated.....There were songs written about the Plaster Casters...Pamela Des Barnes was big as her conquests....Groupies became icons....

Bowie didn't have to cruise the Strip for chicks...lol

Dude had them coming in droves backstage....That's where most of hook ups happening...Bowie, Marvin and George and them weren't going to McDonalds and high schools like Kellz....

>
>Bowie didn't have to cruise the Strip for chicks...lol
>
>Dude had them coming in droves backstage....That's where most
>of hook ups happening...Bowie, Marvin and George and them
>weren't going to McDonalds and high schools like Kellz....

the jailbait coming to him.

OK!

There's level to this shit? I see!

Bowie's 'case' has several mitigating facts that Kellz's 'case' lacks.

of course, for you there's no levels. strict liability - they bang a minor then that's the end.

No...I'm saying different cases...When u r putting on a concert in the 70s...And a beautiful girl steps backstage and says "I want to party..." And the rule backstage is literally NO HEAD, NO BACKSTAGE PASS ...AND said girl is a groupie then there is no amount of celebrating shit...

It was what it was...

Again, no one was carding girls coming to shows back then....But not even Bowie and George and them were so bold to be driving up to high schools and picking up underage girls...There was rules to the groupie game back then as nasty and side-eye worthy as it was....

and it wasn't always some back stage shit either.

you know damn well these dudes were fucking at house parties and shit

i know that at least one of them or her parents either went to the police and signed a criminal complaint or otherwise cooperated in a criminal investigation related to an allegation of child rape/child porn.

also, Aaliyah's parents complained about Kellz marrying Aaliyah w/o their consent and the marriage was annulled on that basis. Aaliyah either never spoke publicly about Kellz after the annulment or i just haven't read it. whereas before she talked about the 2 of them being friends. further, her uncle's label owns Aaliyah's music (i think) and the label recently released a hits compilation that all but ignored the music Kellz made w/Aaliyah.

based on all of that i think at least 1 or 2 of Kellz' 'victims' complained.

I'm just bothered by how one person can be deified while others are crucified for the same shit.

That's all there is to it for me. It's principalities, Smokie!

recognizes that it isn't the same thing

it's the pattern

and it's the active predatory nature of it

it's ok to think both are wrong but it's wrong to pretend it's the same

>But people are not mad at Kellz because he had sex with little
>girls....




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>>But people are not mad at Kellz because he had sex with
>little
>>girls....

Nah...he got away with it...And he still sings about eating out pussy and fucking on the couch ...Today...lol

Hence why people are getting at Kellz on some NOPE....WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET U FORGET U PEED ON THAT GIRL AND CHASED 13 YEAR OLDS....PLURAL....

It's rarely the deed in these type of instances...It's the viewpoint of crime/punishment....

>If you want to be mad at a double standard be mad at social
>media (twitter, instagram. blogs, etc...)...
>

Social media has no bearing on my fellings and thoughts. No need to be mad about any of it. The fact remains that one man's legacy will stand the test of time while another man's is destroyed. Regardless of whom these men are, that's just the fact as I see it.

I'm no apologist for R. Kelly nor for Bowie nor Cosby nor Lewis, Presley, Berry, Roosevelt, George Clinton, et al. If it is true that any of these men had sex with underage girls or non-consenting women, they are sick fucks. I don't care about the era in which the acts allegedly or actually occurred.

>I'm no apologist for R. Kelly nor for Bowie nor Cosby nor
>Lewis, Presley, Berry, Roosevelt, George Clinton, et al. If it
>is true that any of these men had sex with underage girls or
>non-consenting women, they are sick fucks. I don't care about
>the era in which the acts allegedly or actually occurred.


No one is an apologist....Just a realest....Eras matter....Laws matter...

Social media just happens to be the great equalizer now....

I totally understand what you are saying. As a parent, I feel the exact same way!

But, let me be honest. I don't believe that in the 60-70s the state of California was enforcing the statutory rape charges on the Sunset Strip the way they would be now. So yeah, a LOT of stars got away with behavior that was illegal that wouldn't happen today. Especially with Social Media.

Unless you have money, and even then its up in the air, you are getting charged, in today's age.

A lot of Rock Stars, Comedians, Soul & Funk singers got away with some really awful behavior. And, they can't be charged for it. I can give Bill Cosby the stink eye for the rest of his and my life, but if he raped someone in the 80s or before, honestly...he gets away with it. R. Kelly on the other hand, should not get a pass because he is a predator. And, that is the difference. The groupie culture has been well documented so we know what happened back then. So you can choose to fuck with those artists or not.

R. Kelly isn't dealing with groupie culture. The Rrrruh is a predator. He preys on young girls. So no, Mr. Kelly gets no pass from me. I will not listen to his music. I will not stand up for him. And, I believe that eventually he will get tossed in the seventh level of hell for his exploits. But, its not my place to judge. So, I just choose to ignore his ignorant ass.

^^^^^^^

i've only read this story about ONE girl.

but Kellz has been notorious for chasing young girls. for years. repeatedly.

>Let's not fry one man and deify others regardless of their
>contributions to culture.

who if properly prosecuted would spend many lifetimes in jail.

The other slept with someone underage which is statutory rape and if fully prosecuted would get out in five years.

Or it shouldn't matter because the victim is apparently cool with everything... bragging about it, even?

Also, to be anal about it, until he get convicted everything with Cosby is *alleged*

I'm not trying to excuse Cosby, at all. But if we're gonna go hard stopping sexual assault then we need to apply our outrage across the board. Bowie, Page, Gaye, Berry, et al. shouldn't get passes based on who is popular with certain crowds and who isn't.

>Or it shouldn't matter because the victim is apparently cool
>with everything... bragging about it, even?

i'm less 'outraged' about Bowie's alleged child rape b/c there was only one 'victim' AFAIK and there was no complaint made by the 'victim' or her parents or law enforcement.

about how wonderful it was and how much fun she had during that time, there was an article out not even 3 months ago where she talked about her experience with Bowie and the threesome with another baby groupie. but she didn't make it seem on-going.

But he was not the only one...i don't see anyone addressing the other participants who are alive right now. A lot of rockstars are still alive. But no one is addressing them.

and not just this week.

http://elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=349

http://bitchtopia.com/2014/02/12/look-away-rockstars-and-their-underage-prey/

and i think most ppl would agree there. so i don't think Bowie gets a pass on his one alleged occurrence of child rape and Cosby is villified for his 30-50+ alleged occurrences of rape/sexual battery based on their contributions to culture.

That article describes an on-going relationship and sex with more than one minor.



>and i think most ppl would agree there. so i don't think
>Bowie gets a pass on his one alleged occurrence of child rape
>and Cosby is villified for his 30-50+ alleged occurrences of
>rape/sexual battery based on their contributions to culture.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

i only recall learning about one incident between Bowie and Mattix. she went on to have a relationship w/Jimmy Page.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/david-bowie-and-the-15-year-old-girls-7962946

http://news.yahoo.com/complicated-sexual-history-david-bowie-222902494.html

http://elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=349

with Sable and them also having sex on multiple occasions.


"Two hours later, I went to check on Sable. She was all fucked up in the living room, walking around, fogging up windows and writing, "I want to fuck David." I told him what she was doing and that I felt so bad. Bowie said, “Well, darling, bring her in.” That night I lost my virginity and had my first threesome. The next morning, there was banging on the door and it was fucking Angie. I was terrified of her. David said not to worry about it. They were already at the point where they had separate rooms. She probably knew he’d be in there with girls... or boys. He was totally bisexual. I saw David many times after that, for the next 10 years, and it was always great."




>i only recall learning about one incident between Bowie and
>Mattix. she went on to have a relationship w/Jimmy Page.
>
>http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/david-bowie-and-the-15-year-old-girls-7962946
>
>http://news.yahoo.com/complicated-sexual-history-david-bowie-222902494.html
>
>http://elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=349


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

so one 'victim' and more than one occurrence. vs Bill's 30-50+ 'victims' and at least 30-50+ occurrences.

cool.

>so one 'victim' and more than one occurrence. vs Bill's
>30-50+ 'victims' and at least 30-50+ occurrences.
>
>cool.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

so one 'victim' and more than one occurrence. vs Bill's 30-50+ 'victims' and at least 30-50+ occurrences.

Cool.


And again, it's not one "victim" there are two mentioned in that article.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

2 'victims', a 10 yr dalliance/relationship and no civil or criminal complaint vs Cosby's 30-50+ 'victims', more than one civil complaint and so far one criminal complaint.

cool.

IMO, one crime is no greater or lesser than another especially when it comes to the violation of another person's body, soul, and mind.

It's sickening all the way around.

I don't give a damn that it was cool for grown men to stroll an area that was known for underage girls/groupies. I don't care that the underage girls were the aggressor. The GROWN man should have known to walk away from that.

as usual my brainwashed brother we all know the world sees the white man's ice as colder and the reason why we are giving this milk of magnesium skinned man a pass is because of his skin color, while society sits here and tries to take down Bill Cosby! You know he was about to buy NBC/CBS/Microsoft for 300 billion dollars back in the 90's right? Do the math my nigga

A=black power
B=white fear of that power
C=white people using tricknology to take down feared black man

A+B=C my brother.

300 billion?


>as usual my brainwashed brother we all know the world sees
>the white man's ice as colder and the reason why we are giving
>this milk of magnesium skinned man a pass is because of his
>skin color, while society sits here and tries to take down
>Bill Cosby! You know he was about to buy NBC/CBS/Microsoft for
>300 billion dollars back in the 90's right? Do the math my
>nigga
>
>A=black power
>B=white fear of that power
>C=white people using tricknology to take down feared black
>man
>
>A+B=C my brother.
>

>
>
>300 billion?

This was correctly references sarcasm as opposed to the milk reference

Whoa kemosabe

my point was that Bowie doesn't get a pass and Cos denied one b/c so many of us think Bowie's contributions to culture mean more than Cos's. i think for most ppl it's the opposite.

In a lot of cases this ^^^^^ is true...

In this case though? Nah....

Chuck Berry was known for hiding miniature cameras in his business' toilets to tape women's privates....No one is talking about this....

Marvin Gaye had sex with a underage woman who he later married...Even wrote some of his best music about her and his "young thing"...No one cares....

P-Funk use to run through VERY YOUNG female groupies......No one cares....

I'll say it for the millionth time....It's all about the era we are in....Social media is both judge and jury...

Also, it doesn't help that Kelly was still going after young girls in the early 2000....I mean we talking about someone that dated his own God daughter who he had known since she was seven or so....And Kellz did that to one of his biggest supporters and friends George Daniels...

Some things r indeed black and white/racial (the alarming differences between blacks and whites when it comes to prison sentencing and drug laws...Straight racist....)

This ain't one of 'em...

Not true...

George still tours with P-Funk...Recently recorded a record with Kendrick Lamar...AND just dropped his memoirs which was covered by damn near every media outlet...

Bottom line: be mad at social media and the times we are in.....The 70s was a wild time....

What we are dealing with here is A) different eras and B) context as it pertains to social transgressions....

they ain't getting real money so nobody gives a fuck about them...

>Not true...
>
>George still tours with P-Funk...Recently recorded a record
>with Kendrick Lamar...AND just dropped his memoirs which was
>covered by damn near every media outlet...

>they ain't getting real money so nobody gives a fuck about
>them...


U talking about "they"...

I'm talking about George Clinton.....The same guy that just wrote a book for Simon & Schuster and was all over the media outlets from NPR to the Tonight Show talking about said book...

Apparently people have been caring enough to have him on their shows talking about his memoirs....And nobody mentioned it...

Because it's all about eras and context....

P FUnk never back during their prime and peak got the same love as Kiss despite being 5 times the Musicians.

Karama comes in different ways.

bottom line none of those acts ever been as blatant as Jerry Lee Lewis period.

he had no shame and did this in the SOuth period. worldwide.

none of them got a pass like Jimmy Page.


ROb Lowe was on film and he was on tv as a award presenter at the golden globes. White folks do what they want period.

Chuck did time for transporting a 14 year old "white" woman across state lines...The Mann Act...In the south....in the 50's....A black man....

NOT for putting cameras in his own restaurant to film women's privates.....

This is what happened in that instance: "He was given a six-month suspended jail sentence, two years' unsupervised probation, and ordered to donate $5,000 to a local hospital..."

Again...is someone did this ^^^^ in 2016? They would be seeing some time....

no they wouldn't and Chuck Berry got a Pardon and nobody said a word.

he did his dirt and nobody tripped.

i know about that act as the Orange country district tried to tie that one on Michael jackson with no successs.

Chuck Berry had crazy white love and they turned the other eye to a point, however he was blackballed and in a way treated like a novelty act despite his act.

however there is a reason why "My Ding a Ling" is his biggest hit and that ain't by accident.

he was never a black threat.

and he dated an underage girl. There is a difference between an one instance/person and being a predator.

David Bowie and R.Kelly BLVd don't get it twisted.

I mean their was a magzine devoted to underage groupies at the time!!!


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

RE: The Mcrib wasn't out then.

The official sandwich of those who like em young.

Bowie, Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, Iggy Pop, Steven Tyler...etc.

Shit ain't right, but like a previous poster said...

...the 70's yo...

on R.Kelly or Marvin Gaye,etc.. and this is the Industry period.

if you think the artists done got down, well what do you think a Clive Davis or that Cat who managed N SYnc and Backstreet Boys did?

Lou Pearlman was the cat.

ain't nothing new in the industry.

that racist business lets White Boys get a pass.

not condoning R.Kelly,Marvin Gaye,Chuck Berry,Jackie Wilson,Bill Cosby amongest others,however their is a double standard.

RIP to BOwie, however this is why you seperate the personal from the art.

everybody knows Bowie was a freak.try it all.

i don't care or buy that social media is leading this or that, media does what they want period.

Jerry Lee Lewis' career died after that cousin fiasco...

Jimmy? U def. have a point on....But again...in the 70s, Jimmy, Bowie, George Clinton, Marvin, and damn near every rock/soul act was dealing with young groupies....

because he doesnt want all of this ish to be talked about again in this day and age

as well as how they riped off hal;f of thweir material for their own gain etc


>Jerry Lee Lewis' career died after that cousin fiasco...
>
>Jimmy? U def. have a point on....But again...in the 70s,
>Jimmy, Bowie, George Clinton, Marvin, and damn near every
>rock/soul act was dealing with young groupies....
>
>

jerry lee lewis still toured and folks moved on after a while. the only reason why it got much attention aside from it being what it was, was because that turkey was blatant and bold with his.

but life went on as he got older toured, had hits, rock and roll hall of fame and a movie and books on his career. so it ain't a lifetime ban.

thats all i'm saying, most folks move on and seperate the two

more of a cultural/societal ill than a morality one

not comparable to the true predators

still morally problematic although i'm a firm believer in moral relativity

but it's akin to someone who was in an abusive relationship (as the abuser) who was never in another one after said relationship ended

yes, that person is still a woman beater but if it never becomes a pattern...it can almost be chalked up to environmental factors rather than internal predatory behaviors

i think there is a distinct difference there...society fails us all in a few ways and our behaviors will reflect it in some effed up ways but if you internalize those problems to a point...you become more than an environmental "product"

lack of a lasting pattern
and it being the 70s

and for the record there have been many acts, black n white, who have done the underage thing that have not been so called 'crucified' by the general population/media

Beasties
New Ed/BBD
god knows how many rap or rock acts form the 80's and 90's

so please stop this nonsense

this is the thing,everybody knows or assumed something on R back in the day, however his career and strong depth as a Artist was cool as long as he stayed on R&B,however when he worked with Lady Gaga white folks gotta pull his strings.

nobody said a word when his Love letter and write me back albums dropped.
and for the record not many trip or care, because folks still love his music and it ain't stopped him on the Black Side of the charts, however on the White side that is the line.

but in time He will easily be a Hall of Famer
and folks will celebrate his Musical Genius and move on.

i don't buy its a time era or this multi media,etc.. garbage because let white folks tell it in America those back then were the good old days and its how its painted.

naw these Hating Media types know that Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder done passed the Baton to R.Kelly and they trying to bump him off the road to teach him a lesson.

its done on purpose,it ain't about the quality of his work.

because Bro Man still stays Beasting and feasting on turkeys.

>

It's easy to say dude wasn't as bad as Kellz or Cos, put are folks saying it wasn't wrong or he deserves a pass?


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

She has no regrets, doesn't have an issue and is totally OK with it

If you're going to nail Bowie, nail Marvin Gaye too. He met Janis at 16 and made a whole album dedicated to screwing her.

and considering how age of consent is so varied...how wrong you think it is can vary despite what is legal

sleeping with a 13 year old is predatory in itself...

and you bugging if you think it was only once.

did the the 13 yo just randomly show up?

there's a difference

u don't care about that difference...i don't give a shit...

a predator seeks out prey

opportunist rock star is still doing something wrong but doesn't display behavior any more predatory than normal dating/groupie love

continue to cook with one seasoning though

Does acceptable societal behavior give someone a pass for actions that we currently deem 'fucked up'.

Normally id agree with that statement, but Im black and I got baggage since we traditionally ended up on the wrong side of that equation, lol.

For instance Brazil and Italy's age of consent is apparently 14, which seems nuts to me but apparently is culturally fine for them (insert naive speech about them being more culturally liberated then we are where it probably more so means they are backwards).

Cultural Relativism is a real thing and works even with time periods. Underaged sex with groupies were given that wink wink and a smile that other rock and roll behavior was given. Doesn't mean it's right, but it does make it different then the counter examples above who committed crimes in a cultural and social environment much closer to ours.

>Does acceptable societal behavior give someone a pass for
>actions that we currently deem 'fucked up'.

And how you answer this question affects how you answer alot of other big moral questions like, are all slave owners including the presidents burning in hell?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

with girls AND boys.

sure the girls/now-women involved had and have no complaints. but still...he and the others who were with those 2 girls took advantage of them, IMO. as savvy as the girls were they still just couldn't have known exactly that they were getting into. and it wasn't right for grown men who knew better to use them like that. thankfully these women ended up w/o regrets but it could've been so much worse for them as it has been for countless other similarly situated girls/now-women. it's sexual exploitation of children even if the kid(s) involved are okay w/what's happening.

so i'm not down w/it even though i don't think DB's wrong is not as egregious as wrongs committed by similarly situated dudes.

for example, i think Polanski's wrong is worse than Bowie's even though Polanski had fewer victims (only one AFAIK). it's b/c Polanski's victim complains about what happened and describes it as rape IIRC (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/03/roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-extradition-refusal-the-right-thing).

i think Kellz's wrong is worse than Bowie's b/c he had more 'victims' and that damned video Kellz made has been circulated widely. so now that girl's/now-woman's exploitation is preserved for history. plus Kellz seems like a bit of a sexual predator in the way he goes after girls in kid settings whereas Bowie picked up girls in adult settings.

i think Gaye's wrong is about the same as Bowie's. i'm less troubled by that one even though i think Gaye took advantage of Janis.

From Worst to Not the Worst

Cosby - Though no one has come up underage, alot sound super vulnerable and he used drugs to take it against their will.
Polanski - Underage and used drugs to take against will.

Kellz - underage but I don't think there are reports that he took against someones will.

Woody Allen - - If true (and I strongly doubt) very young and was in a postion of authority. Saving grace is that at least he married her.

David Bowie - Young but willing (even the aggressors)
Marvin Gaye - Young But he loved her and even married her





>sure the girls/now-women involved had and have no complaints.
> but still...he and the others who were with those 2 girls
>took advantage of them, IMO. as savvy as the girls were they
>still just couldn't have known exactly that they were getting
>into. and it wasn't right for grown men who knew better to
>use them like that. thankfully these women ended up w/o
>regrets but it could've been so much worse for them as it has
>been for countless other similarly situated girls/now-women.
>it's sexual exploitation of children even if the kid(s)
>involved are okay w/what's happening.
>
>so i'm not down w/it even though i don't think DB's wrong is
>not as egregious as wrongs committed by similarly situated
>dudes.
>
>for example, i think Polanski's wrong is worse than Bowie's
>even though Polanski had fewer victims (only one AFAIK). it's
>b/c Polanski's victim complains about what happened and
>describes it as rape IIRC
>(http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/03/roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-extradition-refusal-the-right-thing).
>
>i think Kellz's wrong is worse than Bowie's b/c he had more
>'victims' and that damned video Kellz made has been circulated
>widely. so now that girl's/now-woman's exploitation is
>preserved for history. plus Kellz seems like a bit of a
>sexual predator in the way he goes after girls in kid settings
>whereas Bowie picked up girls in adult settings.
>
>i think Gaye's wrong is about the same as Bowie's. i'm less
>troubled by that one even though i think Gaye took advantage
>of Janis.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Kellz - underage but I don't think there are reports that he
>took against someones will.

That's what makes his case so sinister (and imho why he had to settle so many cases after the fact since hearing someone lay out how he did what he did would have been damning in the court of public opinion).

Like the Bowie example its not as if they were groupies who snuck backstage or random fans that threw themselves at him.

Like the Gaye example its not as if it was a sexual attraction with someone he wanted a relationship with that happened to be young (WAAAAYY TOO YOUNG)

I can't even launch a Cosby defense where you can say those girls willingly came to his house/did drugs he said vs she said.

He purposely cruised high schools to seduce underaged women to have sex with him, some on film. His jersey has to go up in the celebrity rapist rafters, lol.

bottom line its who they are and folks being seen and taken loot
and who is to say that Bowie, Gaye,Page,etc.. didn't settle and pay hush hush loot either or the record companys didn't pay for silence either?

ain't nothing new under the sun

>>Kellz - underage but I don't think there are reports that
>he
>>took against someones will.
>
>That's what makes his case so sinister (and imho why he had to
>settle so many cases after the fact since hearing someone lay
>out how he did what he did would have been damning in the
>court of public opinion).
>
>Like the Bowie example its not as if they were groupies who
>snuck backstage or random fans that threw themselves at him.
>
>Like the Gaye example its not as if it was a sexual attraction
>with someone he wanted a relationship with that happened to be
>young (WAAAAYY TOO YOUNG)
>
>I can't even launch a Cosby defense where you can say those
>girls willingly came to his house/did drugs he said vs she
>said.
>
>He purposely cruised high schools to seduce underaged women to
>have sex with him, some on film. His jersey has to go up in
>the celebrity rapist rafters, lol.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

who the fuck adopts a kid then married her?

sicko shit...

I read alot about it at the time.

It just doesn't add up.

Same with MJJ.

I read up alot about it. The case is weak against him too.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and then he married her...

that shit is still sick and twisted and weird.

if any other man married his step daughter would you believe he never did anything with her until she was of age?

nah b, that shit ain't kosher

He and Mia Farrow were never married to each other.

facts be damned, Woody Allen molested and married his stepdaughter

Regarding these topics. People will plea cop who they like and shit on those they don't. Crazy how all of a sudden folk found a grey area.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Like those teens ain't enjoy fucking Kellz in his mansion. But hey its whatever. I'm just observing. I have no dog in this fight.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and you know damn well it was more than a couple.

...........

there's grey in there.

not sure if my sarcasm was noticed

Like you tho, I have no dog in the fight for some reason.

If Vanilla Ice had a threesome in the 70's with his ex wife and 14 year old?

No one would give two fucks....

If Vanilla Ice was known to have threesomeS with underage girls or had a threesome with a 14 year old in 2016?

People would most def. be crucifying him....

See the difference?

a soft looking cat like Bowie ain't seen as a threat,but let him look like Hulk Hogan and no matter what era that sirens is coming on.

yeah even in White folks its a different way to look

>Regarding these topics. People will plea cop who they like
>and shit on those they don't. Crazy how all of a sudden folk
>found a grey area.

granted, if we ranking, Kellz is still worse.

but it's still some Kellz shit.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and others also. however one ain't worse over the other, its all a sad bag no matter what. i love the talent of various artists, however i don't condone said acts.

I'm still gonna bump Lets Dance...

but come the fuck on.

I guess some people have to make excuses because they boycott kellz or some shit cause it's really not that hard to call it what it is...

white man done worked some of y'all over.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/teacosy/2016/01/11/david-bowie-was-wonderful-he-was-also-an-abuser-how-do-we-handle-that/


when jay smooth posted a couple days ago.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Right?

damn near every post is pointing out the hypocrisy.

Shit like "but the girls liked it" or it was some backstage Shit....

I really don't see much of a difference between waiting after school or having baby groupies at your house for threesomes...

it all led to sex with minors. why is there a need to make excuses for Bowie?

Lynched. Bowie ain't no different than R.Kelly and i don't condone folks behavior,however i seperate the artist and their personal lives and always have and always will.

comment in here to call misogyny and woman hatred if Bowie was Black.
But now it's just "oh, I heard of this before" LOL.
You see this shit?
Rape is rape, right? Even if it was just one, it's too many! Right?
This ain't about us hating Black men, it's about rape! Right?
These mufuckas full of it.


>why is there a need to make excuses for Bowie?
>



I ain't trippin tho. Bowie did a lot of good just like Bill Cosby,
so I, personally, think that needs to be kept in mind. I'm just
cosigning the fact that there is a lot of acting BRAND NEW on the
part of alotta people on this OKP platform NOW.

or maybe go back to some shit I haven't replied to you on and beg for a response again.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I get why their isn't outrage over this like Kellz due to how long ago it was but it's still statutory rape.

"it was only one time"

"she sounds like she enjoyed it"

"it was a different time back then"

gotdamn I can't believe these replies.

You wanna play the white man game, but Gaye gets as much of a pass as Bowie. I would be fine with this conversation if it was purely based on 'Bowie is or isn't a rapist' 'Even good celebs have shitty sides' etc, but it's very telling that off the bat we go into the 'BUT COSBY THOUGH' and even more disturbing 'BUT KELLZ THOUGH'

You guys just want to give passes to Cosby because why? That nigga ain't march for civil rights. That nigga ain't use his platform to speak out to racism. All he did was make fucking tv shows, that's it.
While its nice thinking of this big conspiracy trying to take down the chubby pudding eating bastard, I am M-U-C-H more concerned with the mundane and non-barbershop conversation worthy prison industrial complex eating our kids up who were truly

1)Innocent
2)Not self hating (that poundcake speech wasn't out of love)

ALL big Cosby did was have tv shows. That nigga aint Ghandi, MLK, Sidney Poitier, Oprah...

Even Coates has disavowed y'all

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bill-cosby-and-his-enablers/422448/

So lets talk about if the skinny white bastard did or did not fuck 15 year olds and the social implications. Second y'all bring up 'DAT BILL COSBY THOUGH' you immediately go into the category of people I wouldn't leave around my hypothetical kids, my girlfriend or my drinks, lol.

fucking underage girls is the story and both these guys make music so how in the hell is kellz NOT going to be in the discussion on OKP?

As far as Cosby goes... I don't think you can deny the impact of his TV Shows. That's foolish.

but I kinda agree that Cosby doesn't really belong in this discussion.


oh, and how does trying to get everyone to Shit on Bowie fucking baby groupies make us woman haters? that's weird.

y'all really think defending Bowie doesn't make you a woman hater?

>oh, and how does trying to get everyone to Shit on Bowie
>fucking baby groupies make us woman haters? that's weird.
>
>y'all really think defending Bowie doesn't make you a woman
>hater?

That's not whats happening here. As to the point that kells would pop up in any kind of discussion about stars/underaged, you're right. But its not:

"YOU, THAT BOWIE IS AS BAD AS KELLS!" (hyperbole, but fuck it, I can rock with that argument)

to

"KELLZ, WAS JUST DOING WHAT OTHER KATS WERE DOING! SEE!"

lol.

Id expect the responses to go 3 ways here

1)Bowie was fucked up indivisual
2)The past was crazy to what was allowed
3)Man vs art stuff

on the third point id even understand if we throw cosby in there as a side example among others, but right now the post is half cosby, lol

and I don't think it matter what people say about Kellz..

Bowie was fucking 13 and 14 year old girls and boys.

it should be shock and awe hell nah...

but I'm seeing pleas like shit for Bowie and its disgusting.

i will still play his hits but damn, why is it so hard to Shit on these white dudes? just makes people look like hypocrites and lovers of the white mans cold ass ice

>Bowie was fucking 13 and 14 year old girls and boys.

where's the article that says this
cause all i've seen is the 14 year old girl

You say this about Bill Cosby...


>That nigga ain't use his platform to speak out to racism.


Oh really? Then what the fuck is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbzF1JFLOMI




>I am M-U-C-H more
>concerned with the mundane and non-barbershop conversation
>worthy prison industrial complex eating our kids up who were
>truly

Great, let's talk about it!

Its alot easier to speak about racism when you're just an actor/comedian as opposed to when you've got real power to change the game...when he reached that level it was all about 'fix your sagging jeans' like the rest of the 'new black' celebs.

you can hate Cosby for the rape allegations but cmon bruh...

easy for a celeb to speak on racism in 1968? really???

Even in the Nina Simone doc they mentioned how it was hard for black artist to NOT speak out on what was happening around them. Those were different times where we were galvanized and even celebs couldn't hide in ivory towers at a certain point (not gonna say it didnt take a whole to get the ball rolling on their end though, but by the late 60's it was a full burning fire)

Either way, its easy to throw stones when you're still outside of the establishment then when you've got enough power to supposedly buy NBC; you saw a different Cosby then this one was by then.

However, we also saw what happened to Nina's career due to speaking out.

The black dust at the Olympics didn't play out so well back home either.

shit wasn't easy to do, you were taking a gamble with your career by speaking out.

The blowback was still heavy for many black artists and there was risk involved.

I still push my bigger point; Bill Cosby's biggest contribution were his shows showing 'regular' black life at a time where we were still heavily marginalized. Its not as if he was an activist like his acting peers like Belefonte or Portier, and while he heavily donated money to higher education for black folks after he became a bazillionaire he did it from a heavy respectability politics stance.

We look at Cosby as 'one of ours' but his run for the past 15 years or so it wasn't necessarily the case.

Jay Z tried to show up at Occupy Wall St. and people have the side eye.

it's damn near impossible to be one of us once you make insane amounts of money.

but it's not like Bill started making White Shows once he had a chance to make what he wanted... he made black shows that out us in a good light and that counts for something IMO.

>I would be fine with this conversation if it
>was purely based on 'Bowie is or isn't a rapist' 'Even good
>celebs have shitty sides' etc, but it's very telling that off
>the bat we go into the 'BUT COSBY THOUGH' and even more
>disturbing 'BUT KELLZ THOUGH'


at this point this is not even so much a discussion of whether or not bowie was a statutory rapist in his twenties
but a why are we not giving kellz and cosby a pass
because.... bowie

its really disturbing logic
and the only way i can explain it is that these people must really love kellz and cosby
they will latch onto any excuse to BUT COSBY THOUGH.

either that or they (privately) see nothing wrong with their behaviour
but cannot admit that openly -as though we dont already know they are shitty individuals

Not that anyone else should be off.
Keep hiding from your internalized racism tho.
Shit's rampant on okp... an epidemic.

There are people in this very post, agreeing with you, who are saying
it wasn't a big deal "in those times", but you aren't calling them
on that shit... but you got so much concern for the victims, psh.
Get all the way the fuck outta here.

which is fine b/c i wouldn't piss on most of them if they were on fire.

but i suspect most of the pearl-clutching in here is not out of actual concern for the girls Bowie banged as much as it's an attempt to catch us in some sort of 'GOTCHA!' trap.

fuck them.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Folks love trying to find a double standard, even if it's just not there. There's plenty of hypocrisy to get outraged over, but comparing Bowie to R Kelly or Bill Cosby is barking up the wrong tree. The devil is in the details.

>but i suspect most of the pearl-clutching in here is not out
>of actual concern for the girls Bowie banged as much as it's
>an attempt to catch us in some sort of 'GOTCHA!' trap.


but i also think they agree with the actions of r.kelly and cosby
why? because there is something wrong with *those* women they victimized

Most still do

i knew a girl and her crew (high school) who sought out every singer/group that came to town.

..and that was in the 90's

Same story for a relative and her crew (underage)who was a fav of the cash $ crew

...and that was in ...well..you get the point.

There's a difference between a predator and someone like (fill in the blank with a 70's musician)

That shit on Almost Famous only scratched the surface of what was going on back then

Shit was wild back then!!

folks gonna say oh ain't the same media, but guess what? the casting couch ain't nothing new
and it works for both sides, both ways
and anything goes.

its easy to pin a tale on somebody when its visible, however how many many,many other cases that ain't half of the freakyness?

folks see and tell what they want and the rest looks the other way.

Until the early 1900's, it was perfectly acceptable in this country for a man over 18 years of age to have sex with a 10-12 year old (the age of consent laws on the books then went as low as 10 and as high as 12). I would go so far as to say that many of you in this very discussion have a grandfather or great-grand relative that married a "child", in today's context, while he was over 18 years old and started popping out kids with her likely before her 16th birthday.

After the turn of the century there was a shift where the consent laws were changed to 16-18, though some states still had their old laws intact. Further muddying this is the fact that some states have lower age of consent for marriage and when married the sexual age of consent doesn't apply.

Even after these limits were raised, the act of a grown man having sex with a 16-18 year old still didn't have the stigma it has today. Honestly it wasn't really until the 80's were society started to really frown on it.

So, contextually, many men in the US leading up to the 1920's would today be considered child predators whereas in their day the shit was just "normal".

It was "the 70's", shit was wild and what Bowie did wasn't unheard of of shocking in the least bit. In 2016 he would be in prison, raped, beaten, maybe murdered while in prison, and when (if) he got out he'd be a registered sex offender, scourge of society.

---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

own all of that believe me on that

and as such their having sex with slaves that today would be "underage" was a normal part of their lives as well as many other slave owning men of that era.

Different times have different societal norms. What was once seen as a normal part of life often times fall out of favor and become seen as "savage" or what have you. At the same time, many things that were once seen as indecent becomes normalized in "modern" societies (i.e. a shirtless man in public could have been arrested for indecency many years ago but theses days no one bats an eyelash at it).

those turkeys broke ever law that know equals 3 strikes.

George Washington is the richest president ever
and he owes it to Slavery
and doing what he wanted to do.

so many people don't even question the very men on the money and coins, but all of them benefited from slavery
and selling my ancestors at any age at auctions, etc..

now that is wrong,and yet what country still celebrates presidents day but got issues with COlumbus day?

ain't it almost one and the same?

I doubt he had sex with any female slaves. There is so much evidence on his homosexuality it is kray! He wrote love letters. He spent NO time at home with Martha. She had no kids with him and he spent a peculiar amount time with a young man.

Maybe other white men but not GW

on the big screen and small and all those movies in the late 70's and nobody said a word.

Brooke Shields stayed being Pimped by her momma on that Escort tip.

nobody even raised an eyelash.

because al the signs were there. and I respect his talents and liked some of his songs, however he was covered.

none of the men he had sex with could consent either LEGALLY.

i think we know more about why sex with teenagers is bad now and mores have changed.

we've softened on gay sex acts and hardened our stance on consexual sex between teenagers and 20 somethings.

it was STILL morally wrong and criminally wrong.

but probably not as morally wrong as the people who marry young teenagers with parental permission which is legal in many states.

definitely not as morrally wrong as seeking out teenage girls and drugging them and raping them against their consent.

definitely not wrong as getting into sadistic sexual relationships with young girls and taping them for yours and others viewing pleasure.

>none of the men he had sex with could consent either LEGALLY.

AFAIK, when it came to prohibited sex acts between adults (which, btw, usually included PLENTY of breeder sex acts like cunnilingus, fellatio and anal sex, among others) BOTH (or SEVERAL) of the ppl involved could be charged criminally w/o regard for whether any of them gave consent. lack of consent was not an element to most sodomy charges. so if 2 men are found having fellatio in their bedroom at home they could BOTH be charged w/violation of a sodomy statute. someone might also be charged w/a sexual assault depending on the nature of the criminal complaint.

whereas if a man is found having fellatio w/a minor in his bedroom only he can be charged w/sexual assault - b/c the law says the minor can't consent and lack of consent is an element in one of the charges the state would bring. of course, before Lawrence v Texas that adult man might also be charged w/some form of sodomy depending on the jurisdiction.

Not gays could not consent.

21 or 22 was the low end depending on the jurisdiction. NAMBLA was the group that fought to have it changed. Prior to it, a 25 year old gay man having sex with a 19-20 year old gay man could be charged with not just sodomy, but sexual assault or statutory rape.


---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

>
>
>
>I read this and my jaw kind of dropped.
>
>https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie
>
>I saw Almost Famous, but I've never really heard anything
>about this scene or the notion of Baby Groupies.
>
>Were rock stars like David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger, Rod
>Stewart, Alice Cooper, etc. rapist or is it more complicated
>than that? Were times different?
>
>Yahoo News had an article entitled "The Complicated Sexual
>History of David Bowie". Is that a pass to frame it like
>that?
>
>We gonna talk about it or let it lay there?
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>>
>>
>>
>>I read this and my jaw kind of dropped.
>>
>>https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie
>>
>>I saw Almost Famous, but I've never really heard anything
>>about this scene or the notion of Baby Groupies.
>>
>>Were rock stars like David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Mick Jagger,
>Rod
>>Stewart, Alice Cooper, etc. rapist or is it more complicated
>>than that? Were times different?
>>
>>Yahoo News had an article entitled "The Complicated Sexual
>>History of David Bowie". Is that a pass to frame it like
>>that?
>>
>>We gonna talk about it or let it lay there?
>>
>>
>>**********
>>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>>
>>"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
>

I mean, i'm not surprised. I've read enough biographies to know that I wouldn't be friends with almost all of my musical heroes.

I agree with Sowhat about the degrees of wrong. Statutory rape is not the same thing (for me) as sex by force/without consent. Cosby is wronger than Kells, Bowie, Gaye, Page et al.

At the same time....I would still watch the Cosby show with my kids. The show isn't about drugging and raping women. In Kell's case....it would seem like some of his work IS about (or alludes to) having sex with underage girls. I'm not gonna listen to a song about him being a pied piper.

I'm not gonna fall into the trap of trying to excuse D Bowie's behavour. I also don't think it's 'inappropriate' to bring it up just because he recently died. I think that much of this thread is over-exaggerating the 'era' argument. People weren't cool with having sex with 14 year olds in the 70's. I think music stars on drugs were just generally assholes who had a sort of impunity because these stories weren't told at the time. The nature of the internet has torn down some of the built-in protection that celebrities had. If someone HAD tried to document this stuff in the 70's the industry could blacklist them and make sure their voice wasn't heard. That power and control doesn't exist anymore. And race certainly played a huge role in HOW that power and control was exercised.

Got me to thinking....just say I'm Paul McCartney. Should I try to address these things before I die? I wonder how receptive people would be to a formal, well-thought out apology\acknowledgement that was respectful to past victims. One that didn't shift blame to the 'era'....one that didn't say 'well everybody was doing it'....one that took ownership and accountability. There's not a doubt in my mind that at least some of these guys are haunted by this shit. Especially now that they got grandkids. I wonder if that might be worth something. Nobody's tried that....it may do some good.

Where is rjcc to bamm up the post, shouting down everyone who isn't
calling him a rapist?
Now it's just "oh, I heard about that once" lmao.

Even if it was just one, it's too many!
So much for that line of utter bullshit.

But it's whatever... like I said elsewhere in the post, Bowie did
a lot of good just like Bill Cosby, and I'm cool with talking about
the good with the bad, but it's mighty strange how there's a whole
gang of you clowns who go EXTRA hard on Black folks who did this
same shit while just glossing over the white dude's offenses.
Yet you can tell me I'm spitting some freshman year AF-AM studies
shit when I tell you white supremacy got your permed head fucked up.
Man if you don't gtfoh.

Do you think it's in poor taste or not?

I get that you're saying there's a double standard. But what do you think the standard should be?

>Do you think it's in poor taste or not?
>
>I get that you're saying there's a double standard. But what
>do you think the standard should be?


I do think it's in poor taste to start in with the disparaging
essays and comments right after someone passes. I'd have to give
more thought to what the wait time should be, but let people mourn
their lost loved one for a month or so at least.
I'd have a lot more respect for this kind of thing if someone showed
up later like "I didn't wanna say this while you all were in the
total shock phase of mourning, but..."
People on here aren't consistent tho. It's only in poor taste when
they like the person. Not only does the immediacy of their bashing
say so, but the fact that they completely ignore the 99% of positive
contributions said person made to society (in these cases in particular).

I was one of the posters who was asking about Welsing and her alleged racism against whites in the RIP post. I can only assume it was taken down partly because of my involvement. I made a decision to be more sensitive about that in the future and I'm sorry if anything I wrote pissed you off.

I guess I just need to remember that other people want that time after someone dies. For me....it could be my biggest hero in the world and I wouldn't get offended if there was debate about their character or perceived flaws. But I need to remember that not everyone is like me and it's really not that hard to respect other people's wishes in this regard. I could have waited a month or two to ask about anything that I perceived to be unethical about her work and it would've been no skin off my nose. So I'm sorry about that.

And I agree that whatever stance someone makes it should be independent of how they feel about a particular person. Unless it's Hitler. He would've been an exception. lol

I don't remember you saying anything
offensive the last time I saw it.

tradeshows.

I've been mostly asleep.

but that's not your actual concern here.

you don't give a shit about these girls, just like you don't give a shit about cosby's accusers.

quit lying b.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You are a piece of shit on these boards who's found that it's the
only way ppl cosign anything you say. No way this is the only time
you can understand empathy and human decency. You're a fraud.

surely he would have been on,here shouting down Bowie if he wasn't at the car show.

He'll be off if another Black man shows up in the news on something similar

it's almost like

>>>You are a piece of shit on these boards who's found that it's the
only way ppl cosign anything you say.


keep enjoying those cosigns from your buddy!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Don't read anything else into it... except that two random people
on the internet see you for the piece of shit that you are.

you're two people who've bonded over shared interest in doubting rape victims.

that you two also don't like me is very much ok.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>you're two people who've bonded over shared interest in
>doubting rape victims.


Not only is that a lie, but you find a way to get back to it when
it isn't even the topic of conversation. You cling to the lie like
someone desperate for something. Like I said, you're full of shit.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and thats all niggas are pointing out...

but he won't do it.

white mans ice be so cold, so cold!!!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

http://www.wordofdan.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ty3333.jpg

take 2 of these and try again tomorrow....

as people cosigning me.

that's sad bro.

you should work on your self confidence, you're worth more than imagined internet kudos.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

It shows in your conduct. I'd never be jealous of such a lowlife.

I mean I know misogyny is kinda based on that whole white knighting thing, but damn.


I could just post up one of those "one gotta go" pictures with four great rap albums for that shit.

I don't expect you to assume I'm ethically above above it, but I'm certainly capable of smarter plans if that's my objective.

I am very offended you think so little of me.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I am very offended you think so little of me.

but it's mighty strange how there's a
>whole
>gang of you clowns who go EXTRA hard on Black folks who did
>this
>same shit while just glossing over the white dude's offenses.
>Yet you can tell me I'm spitting some freshman year AF-AM
>studies
>shit when I tell you white supremacy got your permed head
>fucked up.
>Man if you don't gtfoh.

I accused you of doing this without reading the replies, you said "you should've read the post". so I read the post and you did it anyway

I hope you get evicted for no reason

>I accused you of doing this without reading the replies, you
>said "you should've read the post". so I read the post and you
>did it anyway


No, you short-term memory having clown.. you said
"I havent read the replies in here, but Im guessing you brought up R.
Kelly or Bill Cosby and defended them"
And like I said, I only mentioned Cosby and I didn't defend him.
I simply said Bowie's done a lot of good... just like Cosby.
Keep trying tho.
And keep praying for that ear infection and eviction.

You niggas are crazy...

https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/1596321/size/tmg-gift_guide_variable/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie


She looks so young and fresh-faced, holding the champagne glass
like a sippy cup. Then there's this grown ass man with her pussy
on his mind, looking like a used Kirby salesman. Fuckin yikes, man.

In 197whatever....he deserves to get his ass kicked for this. And/or go to jail. Regardless of her consent at that time or her consent in retrospect. There's a reason we don't allow for this and there's a reason it's taboo. She's not equipped to make choices at that age. Just because she doesn't have regrets doesn't absolve him of responsibility.

I would not be mad if present day Jimmy Page (or anyone else) had to face charges of statutory rape for what they did in the 70's.

I think I speak for all of us when I say it absolutely blows my mind that these rock stars were hanging out with 14 to 16 year old girls in public spaces and noone was DOING anything about it. To reconcile that scenario....alot of us are saying 'it was a different era'. But talk to 50 year olds. That shit was NOT acceptable back then. Noone did anything because it was JIMMY PAGE. To digress for a second....I bet there WERE people who tried to do something about it. They either lost their jobs, got blacklisted, got exited by security, never worked in showbiz again, etc.

If it's 1973 and Joe Blow brings a 14 year old to the pub all up on each other....he's getting his ass kicked and/or going to jail. This is all about the cult of celebrity.

>I think I speak for all of us when I say it absolutely blows
>my mind that these rock stars were hanging out with 14 to 16
>year old girls in public spaces and noone was DOING anything
>about it. To reconcile that scenario....alot of us are saying
>'it was a different era'. But talk to 50 year olds. That
>shit was NOT acceptable back then.



Why is your mind blown?

There were laws on the book in the early '70s where people could still get married to a 16 year old...

>There were laws on the book in the early '70s where people
>could still get married to a 16 year old...


There are laws on the book now that ppl can marry 17 yrs old and
have sex with 16 yr olds in some states. Shit ain't that different.
Still, these girls we 14 and 15.

>>There were laws on the book in the early '70s where people
>>could still get married to a 16 year old...
>
>
>There are laws on the book now that ppl can marry 17 yrs old
>and
>have sex with 16 yr olds in some states. Shit ain't that
>different.
>Still, these girls we 14 and 15.


16 ain't no different than 14 or 15....None....

>>>There were laws on the book in the early '70s where people
>>>could still get married to a 16 year old...
>>
>>
>>There are laws on the book now that ppl can marry 17 yrs old
>>and
>>have sex with 16 yr olds in some states. Shit ain't that
>>different.
>>Still, these girls were 14 and 15.
>
>
>16 ain't no different than 14 or 15....None....


What? I can't tell if you're trying to prove my point for me or
just giving up lol.

>>>>There were laws on the book in the early '70s where
>people
>>>>could still get married to a 16 year old...
>>>
>>>
>>>There are laws on the book now that ppl can marry 17 yrs
>old
>>>and
>>>have sex with 16 yr olds in some states. Shit ain't that
>>>different.
>>>Still, these girls were 14 and 15.
>>
>>
>>16 ain't no different than 14 or 15....None....
>
>
>What? I can't tell if you're trying to prove my point for me
>or
>just giving up lol.

Nah...I'm saying in THOSE times it was deemed as NO DIFFERENT...

Now? Your ass goes under the jail for that shit...

I believe it's all about context/timing/specifics and more importantly how we have evolved as a society....

I'm not saying you weren't. I'm just saying I don't remember
anyone saying that. I may have just overlooked it.
People keep giving a 50+ count, but wouldn't that be off if we
don't count what's from "those times"? I don't think that matters,
but it should to you if you have any integrity, since you're making a
distinction between "those times" and now.


>Nah...I'm saying in THOSE times it was deemed as NO
>DIFFERENT...
>
>I believe it's all about context/timing/specifics and more
>importantly how we have evolved as a society....

and they were shouted down because it shouldn't matter.

cos out here drugging people and raping

kellz out here solely seeking middle schoolers and high schoolers and taping the shit

bowie basically was smashing his earliest demographic while less than 7 years older than them in a time where consent was largely unrelated to age...

today's standards is tighter but even so...statutory rape is not viewed the same as drugging chicks or preying solely on the pre-pubescent

like come on son

this "gotcha" shit is lame as fuck

the people he's condemning. That is, if they have any integrity.

Statutory rape and preying on the pre-pubescent is the same thing lol
You're saying it only matters if it's a pattern. You have every
right to feel that way, but I think Legs is calling out those who
were yelling "even if it's one, it's too many" in other threads.
This was their chance to back that up, and they failed.
So, as stated, if they have any integrity, they think you both are
pieces of shit.

Nope.....Talking about those times it wasn't even deemed as different...14 was viewed as no different than 18 in the 70s....

Now? Shiiiiit....They will tar and feather yo ass...

But I've been asking people over 50 the past couple days.....co-workers, my pops, my neighbor.....the question I posed:

Was it more socially acceptable for a man in his 30's to have sex with a 14 year old during the 1970's?

Ain't noone said yes.

I really do think you're overplaying this card. My guess is that you'd have to go back alot further for this to have been so different from today. Or you'd have to specify a culturally geographic difference (like isolated rural areas).

he was born in the 1940s. my grandmother would have been around 90 now and she married a 43 year old when she was 17. That was in the 1940s as well.

At any rate, it was a different time and Brooke Shields and all these young girls were allowed in clubs. I was even able to get into clubs when I was underage in NYC in the late late 90s, early 2000s when i was underage. The club owners, police and everyone else was turning a blind eye and letting hot underage girls in the club to attract guys.

and if two teen girls came forwards and said yeah i had sex with bill cosby when i was a teenager 45 years ago and it was a fantastic wonderful time in my life, i don't think anyone would have cared or his legally would have been ruined. at this point 1970 IS 45 years ago.

as poisoning someone's drink and having sex with them while they're unconscious.

TOTALLY the same.

but I guess it's much easier to focus on Cosby then compare Kellz and Bowie and admit their is a strange forgiveness being applied to Bowie..

cause it was the 70's

>but I guess it's much easier to focus on Cosby then compare
>Kellz and Bowie and admit their is a strange forgiveness being
>applied to Bowie..


It's much easier to focus on them because the list of women known to be connected to Cosby and Kellz could fill up 7 WNBA teams....

and it's easy to shut that comparison down.

but Kellz and Bowie are pretty much in the same boat. I know some of y'all say it was only one time or he wasn't predatory but uhhh....

isn't one time once too many? and do we really believe it was only once? and what about Rod Stewart and the other names on that list?

I think everyone should be in some "oh, he'll nah" but I guess that isn't how OKP does these days when the perp is white.

>and it's easy to shut that comparison down.
>
>but Kellz and Bowie are pretty much in the same boat. I know
>some of y'all say it was only one time or he wasn't predatory
>but uhhh....



When 11 plus women start coming out of no where talking about how Bowie met them Micky D's and went up to high schools to pick them up then yeah, I will say it's the same boat...

>isn't one time once too many? and do we really believe it was
>only once? and what about Rod Stewart and the other names on
>that list?

I'm all about nuance and perspective....

It's the same reason nobody is screaming that George Clinton/P-Funk should be thrown under the bus for fucking underage groupies in the 70s....Because the atmosphere was a lot different then....


>I think everyone should be in some "oh, he'll nah" but I guess
>that isn't how OKP does these days when the perp is white.

No..U gotta keep up, homie...

I'm saying the same thing for Marvin, for Chuck Berry, for George Clinton, etc...U want to make this a racial thing because it's easier for u to stand on that ground. And I get that. You took quite a beating (and some of it was a bit unfair BTW) in that Cosby post....So I get where u r coming from. No snark...

But really, I always view laws on different levels...It's the same reason why I look at mandatory drug sentencing and get why people scream RACIST...Because there should be different levels to any law...

I'm not that one size fits all dude....Bowie having sex with a notorious 14-15 year old groupie in the 70s on some threesome shit with his wife ain't the same as Bowie actively going to a high school to pick up a 14 year olds a myriad of times....

And again..It goes back to my underlining point...Kellz/Cosby are getting called to the carpet because they were STILL doing their thing in the 2000's, a time where such behavior is now frowned upon...

It's just how we have evolved as a society.....

I'm saying that it was a bit unfair the piling on folks were engaged in....

But I think people thought u were Caping for the Cos....

And really, I hope that's not what u got from my entire post about the matter....lol

my blackness won't let me pile on a Black man when white America is partying over his downfall.

>my blackness won't let me pile on a Black man when white
>America is partying over his downfall.


Yeah...and I think u missed the point of Dave's joke....lol

>but I guess it's much easier to focus on Cosby then compare
>Kellz and Bowie and admit their is a strange forgiveness being
>applied to Bowie..

Trying your best to turn folks words into some kind of silly
defense for one wrong. Only thing being said is throw the same
judgment at 'em both. It's obvious why you don't wanna hear that tho.

I'd consider Bowie a sex criminal, just like Cosby and Kellz but I think a large part of the difference in how they're regarded is dependent on the time they did their crimes.

Bowie and early Cosby did their shit back in a time when people (even the police) were more than willing to look the other way on stuff like this. Their actions were criminal but the culture of the time stifled any outrage. The media would actively cover shit up just to get access so it's no wonder that we're now realizing alot of shit has been swept under the rug.

By the time R Kelly did his dirt, I dunno if we were really any less accepting of that statutory shit, but the tabloid and internet cultures had started to take off so now people all over the country were hearing about what was supposedly an open secret in parts of Chicago.

Cosby's dumb ass was trying to relive his hayday by drugging a 30 yr old woman in 2004... 20 years into the war on drugs, well into the tabloid era of news (TMZ was founded the next year) and well into the era of rethinking what consent even means. His shit will not just be ignored in this day and age and the women of his past now find a culture that is receptive to their feelings of exploitation.

If he'd evolved with the times, acted his age or, you know, just been faithful to his wife, we would've never known how prolific he was at slinging pills back in the day. Cosby is like an extreme version of that 30+ year old friend that's still trying to pump women with drinks so he can fuck. It was borderline criminal when we "all" did it in our teens and early 20's but now not developing more game looks sad and you're way more likely to catch a charge.

in the way Cos did. Bowie didn't chastise his ppl for moral shortcomings in the way Cos did. Bowie didn't have a squeaky clean image as Cos did. So learning this info about Bowie (a hard-partying Rock star known for banging groupies and models) isn't as SHOCKING as learning about the Cos allegations. So fewer ppl feel 'betrayed' by Bowie than by Cos (note: plenty ppl feel betrayed by Bowie and are struggling to reconcile this info with their fandom).

So I get why there's some difference in the responses.

turkeys in here coping for Bowie at all costs.

he in the same boat. just admit it and move on

i like some of Bowie and respected him, however its the same boat

.

(c)atruhead

is that police aren't being held to pretty much any standard, when they kill black men and women. and that they should face scrutiny at least on par with an average citizen.

but you're pro-black tho

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

However, you can't open carry a gun around, beat the shit outta
police, crash into a police car, or kill 9 people in a church and
get burger king as a reward... because police "hold you to a higher
standard" (c)atruhead

The comment was the same type of putting words in his mouth as he
did to others. It's obvious if you think. You don't tho

which is why it's different.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Just accuse everybody of hating rape victims in your blind rage.
Rage on, bro

I think you can't see them through your own insecurity, which is the same reason you think I must say the things I do because it will get me those internet cosigns I've been so sorely lacking.

that's a thing you actually said.

it's so damn sad.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I think you can't see them through your own insecurity


Oh ok, then you're still very off in your
amateur psychology.
Nice try tho

the whys and the wherefores of your thought process are only knowable to you.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

again.

before you can launch those accusations again, chill regular

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

He said I brought up and defended both Kelly and Cosby
I mentioned only Cosby but didn't defend him.
Keep trying tho.
If you keep saying it, maybe some onlookers will believe it.

but you're not actually.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>but you're not actually

you were begging for.

I really hope this makes you feel better and you don't miss me anymore.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

don't deny this connection my g.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I'm not interested, but you have great taste.

that's the moment, don't jump it. gotta let this simmer bro

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but I will say your wit is about as bright as a lump of coal

I havent read the replies in here, but Im guessing you brought up R. Kelly or Bill Cosby and defended them

now my question is say David Bowie was a serial rapist or pedophile, how does that excuse guilty black celebs?

>I havent read the replies in here, but Im guessing you
>brought up R. Kelly or Bill Cosby and defended them


Yeah, you should read the replies before
you assume what happened in the post.
"Actual retarded people" even do better than that.

I take it you're one of the weirdo niggas who needs someone to argue with

>>I havent read the replies in here, but Im guessing you
>>brought up R. Kelly or Bill Cosby and defended them
>
>
>Yeah, you should read the replies before
>you assume what happened in the post.
>"Actual retarded people" even do better than that.
>
>

I dunno why you said that shit, maybe you just forgot you'd brought them up, but it was a wild gamble at best.

it's, on the whole, a very minor thing.

just cop to it and move on. you said you didn't bring them up, but you already had.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"you brought them up and defended them"

Nope, didn't do any such thing.
And if either of you can explain how my mention of Cosby warrants
his question of how Bowie's actions absolves Black entertainers of
their responsibility, you're a helluva magician... because I never
said or implied it did.
But by all means, go ahead. Let's see this.

your words:

but it's mighty strange how there's a whole
gang of you clowns who go EXTRA hard on Black folks who did this
same shit while just glossing over the white dude's offenses.

aka if a white person gets a pass, why are you so hard on Bill Cosby and R Kelly?

aka Im defending them because they're black regardless of them being scum

Again... how does any of that suggest any Black person should be absolved?
Hell, how is it even defending them?

Go ahead... I'm waiting.

it's happening in this very post


Woody Allen didnt molest anyone or marry his stepdaughter
Woody Allen/David Bowie arent on record for drugging and raping anyone
Woody Allen/David Bowie never said "Those niggers should pull their pants up"
Woody Allen/David Bowie never pretended to represent the black community in a positive light
Woody Allen got with his girlfriend's adopted daughter when she turned 21
David Bowie took advantage of (consensually) creepy groupie love*
40+ women accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault
Some of us have seen R. Kelly's tape, he's renowned in Chicago for preying on teenage girls

comparing white creeps to black criminals is poor tribalism and it's piss poor logic

*say this was super immoral, Bill Cosby and R Kelly still deserve every last bit of scorn they've received

because, by now, you've realized you're talking out of your ass
and recalling stuff that wasn't said by me. I see.



>*say this was super immoral, Bill Cosby and R Kelly still
>deserve every last bit of scorn they've received
>


I never said they did or didn't. I said yall respond differently.
I always talk to yall about how white supremacy makes yall treat
white people differently whether we're talking entertainers, politics,
each other, actors, or whoever. Hell with the frequency with which
okp does it, yall should know that by now.
No need to try to create a whole new story.

Think beyond your preconceived notions.
Don't me so mentally lazy.
Peace

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

it's mostly nothing.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

using whatever you just tried to do there, people would be saying "why is it only an issue when black officers kill black people?"

which is just...I dont think you were even trying to make sense

>using whatever you just tried to do there, people would be
>saying "why is it only an issue when black officers kill black
>people?"
>

And that all stems from the "logic" you're using

this is great news for my argument!

kinda shows what's important to you.

just a little to obvi guys, gotta be less thirsty.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

again.

Gotta be less obvi, rjcc. This is too important of an issue to only
dawn the cape when people question the racial disparity.

more "person generally opposed to people fucking kids and incapacitated women or anyone who doesn't want to be fucked at all"

but you title it how you want.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"The FBI thought it could have been an inside job. Ultimately, when the band came back to LA, Peter Grant told me that I had to get out of the hotel or else Jimmy might go to fucking jail."

This says it all for me. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

They were aware of the laws, and I'd have to say the reasons for those laws being in place. They still did what they did. 70s means nothing to me in that context, her consent mitigates the degree of the foulness for me, that's it.

so let's help them understand it.

first, the definition:


mitigate


verb (used with object), mitigated, mitigating.
1.
to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate.
2.
to make less severe:
to mitigate a punishment.
3.
to make (a person, one's state of mind, disposition, etc.) milder or more gentle; mollify; appease.

second, the explanation:

we've both said that the girl's enjoyment of Bowie's wrongful conduct mitigates the harm done. neither of us has said the girl's enjoyment means we think Bowie wasn't wrong. i've gone further to say that the relatively low number of 'victims' in Bowie's case (1 or 2) is also a mitigating fact - i said that when i was comparing Bowie's wrong (keyword: wrong) to Cosby's and Kellz's b/c each had more 'victims'. again, i've said these facts lessen the intensity of Bowie's wrong. they moderate it. they make it less severe as compared to other similarly situated wrongdoers like Kellz, Cos, Polanski, and Gaye, among others. i have flat out said that Bowie's conduct w/this girl/now-woman was wrong. i even used the word 'wrong'.

but, again, you and i have each used a pretty big word that seems to be confusing the He-Man Woman Haters Club. so i want to be sure we're clear about the words we use.

Just curious?

Who else is on the good rapist list? Does Woody make the cut? He only banged one kid.

Wrong but less wrong.

Polanski had only one victim but I think his wrong is more wrong than Bowie's which seems to involve 2 'victims'. Why? Bc Polanski's victim says she was raped while Bowie's describes the beginning of their 10 year casual sex relationship as 'beautiful' (it was her first time having sex).

I have no answer for your question in part bc it's based on a mischaracterization of my stance on the issue at hand.

Or is it based on how the victim feels about it afterwards? If Kellz victims came out and lauded over how magical it was getting sexed up by King of r&b would he be the more acceptable rapist?

More numbers = more wrong.

Kill one person, that's horrible. Kill two, that's more horrible. There's a reason why there are different sentences for the same crimes (leaving out other factors like race). People and courts make these distinctions every day. Why is it so hard for you to understand?

Why was that so hard for you to understand?

All rapists are bad. You want a number? One.

It's like asking how many murders makes a bad killer. You ought to be able to answer it yourself given the info at hand.

So, I've answered your question, you going to continue ducking mine?

>So, I've answered your question, you going to continue ducking mine?

1) the question wasn't even for you so I don't even know why I'm even addressing you or why you even felt compelled to speak for sowhat. I believe you've done this bullshit before. Weird habit.

2) no I'm not. Not ducking. Just don't want to spend anymore time typing to you. I'm interested in Sowhats opinion and answer. Hence why I'm asking HIM the fuckin questions.

Kick rocks breh.

Get your weight up. Lol

>
>>So, I've answered your question, you going to continue
>ducking mine?
>
>1) the question wasn't even for you so I don't even know why
>I'm even addressing you or why you even felt compelled to
>speak for sowhat. I believe you've done this bullshit before.
>Weird habit.
>

SoWhat's reply was for me not you and you jumped in. It was under a strain of replies that I started. Now is the time to get a remedial understanding of how a forum works. I wonder if you've pulled this hypocritical bullshit before. That would be a weird habit.

You know why you addressed me in the first place, but it backfired and now you're ducking in another way and trying to cover your fear. Bit childish really.

>2) no I'm not. Not ducking. Just don't want to spend anymore
>time typing to you. I'm interested in Sowhats opinion and
>answer. Hence why I'm asking HIM the fuckin questions.
>
>Kick rocks breh.

Yeah, and I asked you a question, but you're ducking. Oh sorry, another question, how stressful that must be for you.

Despite my reply directly to him asking him a question that ain't have shit to do with your discussion with him?

Lol man kick rocks. Fukin weirdo

>Despite my reply directly to him asking him a question that
>ain't have shit to do with your discussion with him?
>
>Lol man kick rocks. Fukin weirdo
>

I can see how the answer to your question wasn't self evident based on the answers he's already given. Tried to help you understand by asking where comprehension was tough for you and you got sensitive and evasive. Trying a remedial reading comprehension course, it will curb the need to ask questions that are already answered.

You might still have actual rebuttal instead of this empty posturing.

Help is just a Google search away.

Are we done here?

Seriously, you've got it wrong again. Taking a class to learn something has nothing to do with being smart or being able to read. I'm pretty sure you can read each word, you just can't glean the meaning because you lack training.

Gaye had one known 'victim' - his now-ex-wife, Janis. His wrong is mitigated by the fact that there was only victim, she had no complaint (about the sex they had when she was 16/17), they formed a relationship that continued after she was an adult, and they later married. That makes his wrong less severe than it might have been otherwise. Also Gaye is less wrong than Polanski who also had one known victim.

So there's no magic number, imo. It's not just about the number or any of the facts I've laid out here bc I dunno how many of which facts can work to mitigate the wrong we're discussing.

I see what you're saying. I think it's BS. But I get the gist. There's been plenty of instances where the victims fall in love with their rapist. Doesn't make it any less egregious than any other pedophilia imo. I do agree that there is a grey area in statutory rape. But it has more to do with the age factor. Ei: An older teen fukin an younger teen at his high school. Shit like that is blurry.

I also know this dude I went to HS with. He's 33 and been going down to Brazil the past 4-5yrs every summer to visit his girlfriend. He never posted pics of her vtho until about 2yrs ago when he announced on Facebook they were engaged and he was bringing her back to the states to get married and live together. He posted the pic and no lie she was gorgeous. She looked young but I was guessing 21/22ish. I was like ehh creepy but i understand. She bad. Well he does the damn thing. I ain't go to the wedding or anything. Well 2yrs later he gets into on fb with his sister. His mother is ill and the sister was salty he wasn't helping her take care of her. He had moved his wife's mother to the states too and she was living with them. His sister was obviously mad about that and put him on blast by letting everybody know his wife was 17 when he announced the engagement. She left it at that but for those that know the back story of him taking trips down there for 5yrs to see her.... yea. So yea. That shit is just as sick to me as Kellz cruising high schools and McDonalds.But in dudes defense there's no knowledge of him ever sleeping with her when he was going down there those 5yrs. But that wouldn't matter with you regardless because they got married and she loves him. (Assumingly)

i'm not saying it *wasn't* wrong but knowing something is illegal and knowing it's wrong are not the same thing exactly

>i'm not saying it *wasn't* wrong but knowing something is
>illegal and knowing it's wrong are not the same thing exactly

If you know uneducated men over 50 from a 3rd world country & didn't grow up in the city there is a 50% chance they most likely fucked 14 yr old when they were in their 20s but it was nothing to be frowned upon.

Your parking attended, the dude that mows you lawns..etc most likely did the deed but you still tipped.

going this hard to justify why some old white dude wasn't as bad as the big bad evil black guys??

FOH.

"She enjoyed it". How does that imply that she hasn't suffered some level of psychological damage even if she isn't sophisticated or smart enough to realize it?

"It was just one". You don't believe that shit.

"It was the 70s and everybody was doing it." How many racists from the Jim Crow era are you excusing with that same argument?

SMH.

>"She enjoyed it". How does that imply that she hasn't
>suffered some level of psychological damage even if she isn't
>sophisticated or smart enough to realize it?
>
>"It was just one". You don't believe that shit.
>
>"It was the 70s and everybody was doing it." How many racists
>from the Jim Crow era are you excusing with that same
>argument?
>
>SMH.

you've chosen not to discuss it before, despite hundreds of opportunities.

thank you so much for bringing up these issues you obviously care deeply about

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Like 250+ post with talking about Bowie and these kids and you are stuck on a couple people who are saying white boys do what Kellz does and gets away with it.

You about as myopic as the people you going after.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the bsc decided they had questions and asked for me by name :)

that's simply good manners.

If you look at my actual post (reply to the op) in this thread, and read the link, it's pretty consistent.

or you could not, and accuse me of myopia because I responded directly to people who questioned my character publicly, and felt the need to call me out, for things they think I didn't say enough.

which discussion is more appealing to you is your choice.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Your analysis is succinct! It's a god thing you came through to tell em about themselves. This was very necessary.

https://youtu.be/0JeK4yD7cfE

and as you can see in this thread, most people's concern is only about the men involved.

they can't imagine a different focus

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

not everyone is responding like its about whats important to them, but 50% are. They are not considering the basic differences in certain cases. Nobody has excused anything here but they are acting like some are.

Some are exoplaing the juance and the other half are not understanding that, fighting that, ignoring that, responding to 'whats important to them' aka "gotcha!" or just plain dumb niggas

>and as you can see in this thread, most people's concern is
>only about the men involved.
>
>they can't imagine a different focus
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And the pride that makes them afraid to ask for help when they don't understand. They'd rather lash out to hide their insecurity over their inability to understand some basic concepts. Must be frightening to be caught out like that, especially while so much of the rest of the developed world marches on.

they just don't care.

until they start to give a shit about women at all, it will never make any sense to them.

you can see it in their replies here, the only concern is which man is getting shit on more for what.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

they're just trying to catch 'us' in some sort of trap.

And yall ain't dissapoint at all. I mean i was genuinely curious and did honestly want to see if I was missing anything from a different POV. But nope. Yall look absolutely ridiculous. Especially the they came to him in the club angle. Shit was amazing. No need to 'trap'. You've made your views on pedophilia very clear before this post.

you and others don't give a shit about shit except trying to show up folks.

it's fine. i don't expect to change your wee-little mind. i wasn't posting in here for you anyway. LOL

I leave the trying to flex intellect and debate skills online to you, ted and the other folk on here that argue in circles all day on here. Shit is exhausting. I just wanted to see how far down the rabbit hole people were willing to go. And I wasn't dissapointed. I wanted to throw a Michael Jackson bone out there. I know niggas love their MJ. But the God's said chill.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/stacey-rambold-cherice-morales

"The fact is, a 14-year-old girl may be capable of agreeing to sex with a 49-year-old man, but she doesn't have the emotional and mental maturity to consent. I was 25 before I realized that every man I'd slept with as a teenager was a pedophile. It seemed to me that since I'd courted the attention, that I was fully culpable. What teenager believes she is not mentally or emotionally capable of full consent? I thought I was an adult, although when I look at the picture of myself from the time period above, I see a child."

"Because I was a child, I was missing large pieces of the perspective required to understand adult situations. Children can be sexual. Children can pursue. Girl children in particular may have already learned how to manipulate and bargain with their sexuality at a very young age. They are still children. Like all children, they test boundaries, boundaries that adults must set and maintain."

"What I needed, and what she needed, were strong male role models in my life who knew how the fuck to say "No thanks" to a little girl's come-ons. Because it doesn't matter if a young girl is saying yes, it's an adult man's job to say no."

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

that's why so many of us have said what Bowie did is wrong.

"Bowie doesn't seem like a predator b/c AFAIK he only had sex w/one girl so the kid rape thing wasn't a pattern. also, the girl who's the subject of this story was hanging at clubs on the Sunset Strip - a particularly adult environment as opposed to a teen hangout spot. finally, the girl says she was into the sex and to this day she's not complaining about it and says it was a 'beautiful' event."

1. i was discussing why i think the public is reacting to Bowie's wrong differently than they're reacting to Kelly's wrong. to me Kelly seems like a predator for the reasons i stated and Bowie does not.

2. http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12956056&mesg_id=12956056&page=#12956403

102. yeah, it was wrong.
Wed Jan-13-16 01:16 PM

In response to Reply # 84
Wed Jan-13-16 01:40 PM by SoWhat

sure the girls/now-women involved had and have no complaints. but still...he and the others who were with those 2 girls took advantage of them, IMO. as savvy as the girls were they still just couldn't have known exactly that they were getting into. and it wasn't right for grown men who knew better to use them like that. thankfully these women ended up w/o regrets but it could've been so much worse for them as it has been for countless other similarly situated girls/now-women. it's sexual exploitation of children even if the kid(s) involved are okay w/what's happening.

so i'm not down w/it even though i don't think DB's wrong is not as egregious as wrongs committed by similarly situated dudes.

for example, i think Polanski's wrong is worse than Bowie's even though Polanski had fewer victims (only one AFAIK). it's b/c Polanski's victim complains about what happened and describes it as rape IIRC (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/03/roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-extradition-refusal-the-right-thing).

i think Kellz's wrong is worse than Bowie's b/c he had more 'victims' and that damned video Kellz made has been circulated widely. so now that girl's/now-woman's exploitation is preserved for history. plus Kellz seems like a bit of a sexual predator in the way he goes after girls in kid settings whereas Bowie picked up girls in adult settings.

i think Gaye's wrong is about the same as Bowie's. i'm less troubled by that one even though i think Gaye took advantage of Janis.

>1. i was discussing why i think the public is reacting to
>Bowie's wrong differently than they're reacting to Kelly's
>wrong. to me Kelly seems like a predator for the reasons i
>stated and Bowie does not.
>
>2.
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12956056&mesg_id=12956056&page=#12956403
>
>102. yeah, it was wrong.
>Wed Jan-13-16 01:16 PM
>
>In response to Reply # 84
>Wed Jan-13-16 01:40 PM by SoWhat
>
>sure the girls/now-women involved had and have no complaints.
>but still...he and the others who were with those 2 girls took
>advantage of them, IMO. as savvy as the girls were they still
>just couldn't have known exactly that they were getting into.
>and it wasn't right for grown men who knew better to use them
>like that. thankfully these women ended up w/o regrets but it
>could've been so much worse for them as it has been for
>countless other similarly situated girls/now-women. it's
>sexual exploitation of children even if the kid(s) involved
>are okay w/what's happening.
>
>so i'm not down w/it even though i don't think DB's wrong is
>not as egregious as wrongs committed by similarly situated
>dudes.
>
>for example, i think Polanski's wrong is worse than Bowie's
>even though Polanski had fewer victims (only one AFAIK). it's
>b/c Polanski's victim complains about what happened and
>describes it as rape IIRC
>(http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/nov/03/roman-polanski-victim-samantha-geimer-extradition-refusal-the-right-thing).
>
>i think Kellz's wrong is worse than Bowie's b/c he had more
>'victims' and that damned video Kellz made has been circulated
>widely. so now that girl's/now-woman's exploitation is
>preserved for history. plus Kellz seems like a bit of a sexual
>predator in the way he goes after girls in kid settings
>whereas Bowie picked up girls in adult settings.
>
>i think Gaye's wrong is about the same as Bowie's. i'm less
>troubled by that one even though i think Gaye took advantage
>of Janis.
>

I mean all those dudes on To Catch a Predator always said they never done anything like that before whenever they got caught.

So yea. I'm sure it was a 1 time thing.

did those dudes on TCAP meet their kids @ nightclubs on the Sunset Strip?

Not that he was simply "wrong"

And this is not in comparison to anyone else. This is just about him.

or even a pedophile. i dunno. to me for him to be either of those i'd need some evidence of a pattern/practice of seeking out sex w/children. so far i haven't seen that - i've only heard about him banging out 2 girls he met in a night club on the Sunset Strip. if he were trolling kid-spaces looking for girls to bang then i'd think he's a predator/pedophile.

but either way he was wrong to have sex w/that girl.

scoop them up.

end

in this post.

Second, threesomes with 13yr olds is enough to be considered a predator in my book.

But I'll let you tell it if it makes you happy.

>in this post.
>
>Second, threesomes with 13yr olds is enough to be considered a
>predator in my book.
>
>But I'll let you tell it if it makes you happy.

tired of white boys getting pleas

all dating is predatory to a certain extent

if you prey on a certain demographic (u know...the one we are actually talking about)...those psychosocial impulses that drive you to them is what makes u the true predator...

sure...a lion could lay down and swat at the first baby gazelle to pass his lying body...but if he stalks those baby gazelles by running past their momma and daddies...yea, that's clearly a bit different

it doesn't make the laying lion unwrong...just unoffensively so to many

also, it's worth mentioning...despite statutory laws we recognize that people mature at different paces and that if consent is giving even though they can't "legally"...there is a lot more room for moral grays...

but when someone constantly plays in the kiddie pool AND the harm is damn near quantifiable...yes...way more fucking outrage...nuance and common sense goes a long way

if you find them equally offensive...congrats on your odd ethical stiff necked high horse

of this behavior and the thought that it was okay because the woman says it was. As if someone couldn't be fucked up and NOT admit it (or know it for that matter).

I don't personally believe that shit. THAT'S common sense.

The end.

Keep making excuses for why he shouldn't be called out though.

It's entertaining.

"We sick".

>of this behavior.
>
>I don't personally believe that shit. THAT'S common sense.
>
>The end.
>
>Keep making excuses for why he shouldn't be called out
>though.
>
>It's entertaining.
>
>"We sick".

okp...smh

I asked you to stop this nonsense

dont act dum/ordinary

wtf lol

he fucked a 16 or 17 year old - Janis Gaye.

i have no reason to suspect he fucked other underaged girls based on the story of him fucking that one girl.

he Black as fuck.

sure

so this bullshit argument that i'm only willing to see Bowie's mitigation b/c he's white is bullshit and has been since the beginning.

you see it.

okay.

I'm just fine with it at this point.

>sure


Come on dog...U can't just "shrug" at that after claiming folks r note quating Bowie's sexual misdeeds with Kellz because dude is white....

I'm as much of a race man as anyone on this board...But come the fuck on...lo....U trolling hard...

lets say its bc race again...

and note most of us feel the same way about marvin gaye

if the pattern can't be found...i assume it's likely not to exist

the number matters less than the fact that he clearly stopped doing it for one reason or another and clearly he started smashing women of legal age

u can think it's 10 of em if you want...those stories would be out by now...too much $ in it...i doubt it was just 1...and still don't give that much of shit

now try again

remember...i think it's wrong...but often ranks low on the harm scale...predators aim to harm...whether you acknowledge the significance of that or not makes me no never mind

And actually I'm the one that ISN'T biased because I actually believe that people that perform rape of all categories are fucked up people. Not just the categories I pick and choose.

Keep going though.

We sick.

yes, i know pedophiles and predators often view themselves differently...they are sick

im general people are fucked up...

but there are indeed levels...again...congrats to acknowledging fewer than most reasonable human beings...CONGRATS


>And actually I'm the one that ISN'T biased because I actually
>believe that people that perform rape of all categories are
>fucked up people. Not just the categories I pick and choose.
>
>Keep going though.
>
>We sick.

I'm calling it what it is, not grading "how" bad it is.

I'll leave that to you since it means that much to you.

Look up and down this post and try to find where I'm saying he was on the same level as or worse than anyone else in particular. I'll wait.

I just find it entertaining that some of you are trying so hard to prove that he isn't.

To me it's predatory. I give a shit if it's "1st degree" or "4th degree" predatory.

Again, I'll leave that to you, pal.

like that's why when it comes to homicide the law recognizes that some homicides are more egregious than others. some homicides are deemed justifiable - like when the person who committed the homicide was acting in self defense, for example. if the homicide can't be justified it may be classified as something other than murder. like if the person acted w/o meaning to commit a homicide but their conduct resulted in a person's death - that's manslaughter, basically. or if they meant to commit the homicide b/c they were enraged. or they mistakenly believed they needed to defend themselves or someone else - that's second degree murder. then of course there's the big dog - first degree murder - they meant to kill for some reason that's unjustifiable.

my point - there's degrees to the shit. the law sees it even w/an act as egregious as homicide.

that's all some ppl are saying w/relation to this Bowie thing. there's degrees to the shit. yes, what he did was wrong - no doubt - but some of us believe that what he did wasn't as wrong as it could've been. that's all we're saying. you and others don't see it that way.

*shrug*

Both of you are arguing your point with someone who never debated it.

If I call a bench player a professional basketball player, I'm not saying he's Lebron James.

Yes, there are levels.

I'm just calling it what it is based on what it is regardless of where it ranks on the totem pole.

Bowie was wrong to bang out those teenaged girls.

i've been right for a while now.

>but when someone constantly plays in the kiddie pool AND the
>harm is damn near quantifiable...yes...way more fucking
>outrage...nuance and common sense goes a long way


This ^^^^^^ is the point some folks seem to be dodging...Or at the very least missing....

Yes, there are "levels"

I'm not arguing what's worse.

I'm laughing at everyone who is going so hard trying to defend the shit.

"BONING A 14yr OLD GROUPIE AIN'T THAT BAD!!"

I mean, if you guys say so. You like it, I love it.

He was still a pervert, predator, or whatever else anyone else wants to call him. Even if didn't have 15 proven victims.

One is enough. Or are we changing that rule now...

in Bowie's case i say he was not out looking for underaged girls to fuck b/c he met the girls in the story we know in adult spaces - nightclubs - where he had good reason to believe that any women he met would be at least 18 years old since the spaces where he met those girls prohibited ppl under 18 from entering. they were nightclubs w/door policies and all that jazz. i'd say he's a predator who preys on underaged girls if he were out and about at like Chuck E. Cheese or other similar kid spaces looking for girls to bang out.

if i hear more facts about Bowie going to high schools or other kid spaces to look for girls then i'll change my opinion.

adult spaces (which the article indicates), even though they weren't "supposed to be", and he chose to zero in on them and take them home and fuck them, to me that's still predatory.

I understand where you're coming from, we just disagree on that point.

been reading through these posts and what i get is

the 13 year olds might have enjoyed it so it makes it okay
bowie did it so now its okay- we need to look at it in a new light
he's not a predator - he was just hanging out in high schools seeing if the girls were learning science
when he peed on that girl, well she enjoyed it
he wanted to make sure they were getting all their nutrients by taking them to micki D's
the number of girls doesn't matter
his actions don't matter, even though he is a grown man


i might also need cliff notes on the cosby defence
it appears to be that drugging women without their knowledge
and then happening to have sex with them without their consent
is now okay, because....
well, what is the because?

It seems that drugging girls in the 70s has been deemed acceptable in this post.

Just in that era though.

Cosby was also drugging them in the 80s, 90s and 00s.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=12956056&mesg_id=12956171&page=

"A rock star giving pills and coke to 14-15 old groupie was not shocking in the 70s...A rock star doing the same thing in 2000 up is indeed shocking..."

Knocking people out to fuck em wasn't even cool in the 1800's, lol.

If you're giving drugs to children, you might as well be giving them roofies.

Or is the concept of a child completely lost in the post.

in the 70s it was okay to give women drugs that would knock them unconscious without their knowledge?
i kind of doubt that
i mean, yes, i will admit that it was okay to give drugs (with their knowledge- not without as cos was doing)
in order to get high or whatever

and this to me is what makes the difference with what cosby was doing i.e.
1. giving them drugs with their knowledge
2. drugs that would not render them unconscious and unable to know whats happening to them. i.e. drugs to get high, or whatever.

you are saying that it was acceptable to render them unconscious for the sole purpose of taking advantage of them?

I was just providing a report of what someone else said.

that all that was acceptable in the 70's?

i mean, i get what he's saying

however, even given that it was acceptable then
i do see a difference with what cos et al were doing
so i think even in those more accepting times
what he was doing would still be wrong
im just trying to understand where people are getting the perception
that it would've been acceptable in that era

behavior.

The difference is that Cosby allegedly never stopped beyond that era.

>The difference is that Cosby allegedly never stopped beyond
>that era.

knowledge
in order to have sex with them without their knowledge/consent/while they were passed out

i dont know why you dont see this. its pretty straight forward
cosby isnt deplored for giving women drugs
its for raping these women- while using the drugs to achieve this final goal

and have sex with her.. you're telling me that isn't rape?

Are you really telling me that a 14yr old girl is competent enough to consent to having drugs and sex with a grown man??

By the way, I hope you realize that my initial reply to you was sarcasm.

>and have sex with her.. you're telling me that isn't rape?
>
>Are you really telling me that a 14yr old girl is competent
>enough to consent to having drugs and sex with a grown man??

i think cosby raped those women
i also think if it was the 70s
he still wouldve been considered foul
because he didnt give them drugs, he slipped them drugs without their knowledge
and then raped them while they were unconscious
now *that* is pretty foul, regardless of the era

now, the question you are asking.... if cosby had given 14year old girls drugs
which they consented to take
and then fucked them when they said yes lets fuck, old man
would i still consider it foul?
hell yes.

but thats not what y'all are arguing
so i want to know the cosby defence.

its some sort of circular dance i dont know how to do
the post you replied to, asked for the cosby defence
(and granted- i'm still waiting on the r.kelly defence)
you jump in to answer- so i assume you are one of the cosby defenders
trying to answer the question i posed

now.. a few posts later you dont know what you were responding to?
or you dont know the premise of my question?

Again...it wasn't my argument...Stop this silly bullshit, dog....Seriously....

If u r talking about the comment u plucked out of my post, then yes...That's exactly what I meant...recreational, "party" drug use in the '70s....

Not knocking women out with doctored drinks....

Yeah...He knows what I'm saying... I have no idea what he's trying to do here...

>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_mesg&forum=4&topic_id=12956056&mesg_id=12956171&page=
>
>"A rock star giving pills and coke to 14-15 old groupie was
>not shocking in the 70s...A rock star doing the same thing in
>2000 up is indeed shocking..."


Yeah...I was talking about "party "drug use...As in, EVERYBODY PASS THE COKE MIRROR AROUND drug use in the '70s...Not, HEY, HERE IS A DRINK...RELAX (*drink contains a knock-out sedative*)...

Two different things here...

To me handing a drug to a 13 year old in their face is little different than drugging an adult without their knowledge.

Neither are in a position to know what they're really getting into.

But keep going though. Tell me how recreational drug use with an 8th grader is less harmful.

I believe that at 14-15 years old u have enough common sense to turn down coke at a party rather than being "tricked" into taking said drugs...

I believe that if u r going backstage to a David Bowie show in 1973 and you are well versed in the groupie lifestyle regardless of the age, then u know what's up when it comes to party drug use....

I believe offering a 14-15 year old girl coke in the '70s, no matter how fucked up it is (and trust...it's fucked up), does not reach the levels of offering a woman a glass of wine that happens to spiked with a date rape drug....Or TELLING SOMEONE that u r giving them a pill for a headache, but it's really a powerful sedative....And reportedly doing that very same thing over 50 times over the course of 50 years....There's levels to this shit...

I base all this on the information that I am given...Not on some WELL U KNOW BOWIE FUCKED MORE THAN 2 14-15 YEAR OLDS....RIGHT??????

Bowie fucking a couple of underage girls in the early '70s was wrong...Marvin fucking a 16 year old Janis was wrong....

But they don't reach the level of what Kellz or Cos have reportedly done...

It's very straight no chaser....At least for me...

So age of consent means nothing to you other than it simply being "fucked up". Great.

Also I never said one rapist was worse than the other.

What I'm saying in this case is that there is a connection in the sentiment that in the 70s drugs and sex was okay. Only you don't find a major (criminal) problem with an adult giving drugs to a minor. Fine, I do.

Also, I've never mentioned Kelly in this post, and I never said Cosby was "equal" to Bowie. So you can have that argument with someone who actually thinks that.



>I believe that at 14-15 years old u have enough common sense
>to turn down coke at a party rather than being "tricked" into
>taking said drugs...
>
>I believe that if u r going backstage to a David Bowie show in
>1973 and you are well versed in the groupie lifestyle
>regardless of the age, then u know what's up when it comes to
>party drug use....
>
>I believe offering a 14-15 year old girl coke in the '70s, no
>matter how fucked up it is (and trust...it's fucked up), does
>not reach the levels of offering a woman a glass of wine that
>happens to spiked with a date rape drug....Or TELLING SOMEONE
>that u r giving them a pill for a headache, but it's really a
>powerful sedative....And reportedly doing that very same thing
>over 50 times over the course of 50 years....There's levels to
>this shit...
>
>I base all this on the information that I am given...Not on
>some WELL U KNOW BOWIE FUCKED MORE THAN 2 14-15 YEAR
>OLDS....RIGHT??????
>
>Bowie fucking a couple of underage girls in the early '70s was
>wrong...Marvin fucking a 16 year old Janis was wrong....
>
>But they don't reach the level of what Kellz or Cos have
>reportedly done...
>
>It's very straight no chaser....At least for me...
>

I believe a 14-15 year old can turn down coke offered to them...

I do not believe however that 14-15 year olds are mature enough to handle such drugs nor do I believe they have the emotional depth to deal with older men/women...

As I've stated, Bowie, Marvin, and the like were no angels in their dealings with 14-16 year olds....

This entire thread was about how the times of said era (the '70s) and the specifics of each case matter...

So basically, a 15 year old groupie in 1973 being offered drugs out in the open at a backstage rock n roll party is a lot different than a 15 year old in 2016 being offered drugs by an adult...

Morals were different...the idea of what was "cool" was different...Today, Bowie having a threesome with a 14 year old or Marvin fucking around with a 16 year old would have = serious legal or jail time...

But really my point is I believe that there are levels to "wrong"....And amount of times a wrong is noted matters...Specifics matter...

Whatever other debate u r trying to have I'm not sure I'm in that same lane...

is that a 400+ post full of people falling all over themselves defending why a pervert wasn't that much or that bad of a pervert is dumb.

His actions aren't worth this much defense.

>is that a 400+ post full of people falling all over
>themselves defending why a pervert wasn't that much or that
>bad of a pervert is dumb.
>
>His actions aren't worth this much defense.


Right...Except no one was falling over themselves...I saw ONE dubious post that said something to the effect WELL IF THEY ENJOYED IT, IT'S ALL GOOD...

Other than that, what people have been saying is very measured and fueled by common sense and historical nuance....

1. What Bowie, Marvin, George Clinton and crew (in their dealings with underage groupies in the '70s) did was scandalous and wrong...

2. But u also have to take in account the era that they were in...Eras when drug use was CRAZY..Snorting cocaine was as normal as smoking weed...And groupie culture was such that entire magazines were dedicated to and celebrated groupies...

3. I judge Bowie and Marvin differently than I do Cosby and Kellz...And for reasons I've stated a myriad of times in this post....

This ^^^^ is all I've ever stated. At this point, u r either trolling or having a debate by yourself...

Yet I'm the one debating with myself...lol

I heard you the first time, dude. Save the explanations. It's okay.

Good luck with that.

you dont have any. some one else may
(although i doubt they can rationally think through this)

>Good luck with that.

thanks.
its getting harder to have reasonable discussions on okp
we seem to have lost ability to reason/argue view points- used to be one of the great things about this site
instead we are stuck with folk like you and some others in this post
where its more about scoring points/last word
so yes, one needs luck to get a good discussion going

i didnt know this was acceptable in the 70s

and actually, on this drugging girls thing
it was okay to slip drugs in their drinks without their knowledge?
because as far as i can tell, this wasnt deemed acceptable then
but perhaps i am wrong, and it was okay to drug girls without their knowledge
i do know offering women (and men and probably girls and boys) and them accepting to take them
was viewed very differently back then.

so.. were cosby's actions acceptable *in* the 70s?
i might need some cultural background on this

and slipping drugs in a woman's drink (without her knowledge)
are one and the same thing
I dont get this. i mean, why isn't the woman being given the same opportunity as the child to either say yes or no?
and why isnt this relevant?- shouldn't we respect women enough to
a) not compare them to children - or rather a child given a chance to say no to drugs
b) find it deplorable and despicable when they are exploited and taken advantage of


but... okay. lets assume that i buy this - that they are one and the same
apart from saying that we believe david bowie was as despicable as cosby
how is that a defense of cosby's behaviour?



*and im still waiting for the r.kelly defence*

Let me help you.

No.

One.

Is.

Defending.

Cosby.


My reply to you about the 70s making his behavior acceptable was SARCASM in relation to an earlier reply.

You want to have a debate about why Cosby is evil or why Bowie isn't as bad as Cosby.

You may have to settle for having that debate with yourself.

i dont know why you think this is only addressed to you
you just happened to be the first person to jump into this
and after our back and forth up there- i dont know that you have any further insights
other than what you said about drug use and children/women.
so. i think we are done.

im ready to hear other answers- numerous people in this post seem to have a cosby/kelly defense. im asking for cliff notes

>Let me help you.
>
>No.
>
>One.
>
>Is.
>
>Defending.
>
>Cosby.

cute, btw


>You want to have a debate about why Cosby is evil or why Bowie
>isn't as bad as Cosby.

actually, if you read and understood what i wrote, no im not asking for a debate to compare bad apples
i recognize that this post stopped being about david bowie ages ago
(and i would've actually loved to have discussed this issue in the context of david bowie - because cultural relativity -
and moral equivalence/equivocation is something i am keen on )
instead- this has become a post to say, well bowie was as bad as cosby/kelly
so for those who have some equivalence on bowie, or dont think what he did was terrible-
then they have to judge kellz/cos in a different light

i want to know how anyone can even think this. how does any of this exonerate cos/kelly?
i cant believe i have to explain this to you - i mean, *i'm* the esl

>You may have to settle for having that debate with yourself.

no prob. but if perhaps if you stopped bumming up the responses others may decide to answer
if not. it just proves they have nothing of merit to say

If you do, you'll find that no "Cosby defense" has been presented.

And you'll find that your question is redundant.

But like I said, good luck.

>If you do, you'll find that no "Cosby defense" has been
>presented.
>
>And you'll find that your question is redundant.
>
>But like I said, good luck.

lol!

Or are we united for once in agreeing that this woman is credible despite there being only one of her and not a lot of proof to back up her version of events. Suddenly where there's smoke there's fire... Would she suddenly not be credible if she'd said Bowie raped her?

Has anyone called for a consistent application of doubt as was demonstrated for Cosby?

I wonder why her account from decades ago is immediately credible but 50 other women....we need more information.


maybe people just got woke and are believing victims. I'm going to stay positive

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>I wonder why her account from decades ago is immediately
>credible but 50 other women....we need more information.

Like the man said? Is that how that goes?
>
>
>maybe people just got woke and are believing victims. I'm
>going to stay positive
>

Baby steps.

LOL

show me where I personally accused one of Cosby's victims of lying.

I'll wait.

and bro, not paging through threads to re-read all the shitty shit you've said about rape victims before.

just going to stay positive about you saying you give a fuck about victims now, which is super dope! high-five!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

And for the record, I've asked you for this before. Months ago. And you weren't able to do it then either.

Because you're full of shit.

The only thing I've ever said on the topic of Cosby is that I, personally, would not participate in all the daily social media outrage bullshit because as it pertains to him, he's way past his prime, he's already made a ton of money that ain't going nowhere, he's like 80yrs old, and he isn't going to go to prison for the shit. So no, posting a bunch of memes and fuck you Bill's on twitter isn't going to solve anything. THAT'S what I've said from the beginning.

But you were in prime troll form, so reading comprehension wasn't a priority for you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I can't come up with a quote from you, that wasn't my point. My point was to show how smoke and fire is suddenly a credible and post worthy principle to follow for everyone AFAIK in relation to Bowie but was divisive in relation to Cosby.

But since you're here, can you show me where you called out an alive and able to answer the charges Cosby based off the word of one of his accusers in the manner you've done for Bowie herr? I'll wait.

separate him from other predators and pedophiles.

Feel free to continue with your point though. It has nothing to do with me and you've admitted that which is fine.

>separate him from other predators and pedophiles.



I don't see how you can shake your head without believing the woman's original account. I just wondered if you also signalled your belief in the Cosby accusers.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=search&select_forum=4

glad you've demonstrated that he doesn't have to quote you anything for his statement to be true and you therefore have no real basis to say he's full of shit on that point without being full of it yourself.

I have made no accusation, the two of you have. Burden of proof is on you.

You know, the way the state has the burden.

It isn't, "I know you did this, prove to me you didn't."

Do your own research. I know who I am and what I've said. If you don't believe me, find the contradiction.

If you're not willing to, tuck your shit and move on.

> Burden of
>proof is on you.


i mustve missed that page on the messageboard-posting 101 manual

showing that it isn't true.

Have fun.

as proof or whatever
as though it is written somewhere
i mean ive seen people do it here and there (i dont know how to so whatev)
but what makes you think that anyone is obligated to
i mean, you are all 'burden of proof' as though the mods will swoop in and ban anyone who doesnt follow these regulations
hilarious!

will you go fishing back through posts to prove me wrong?

If not, you're playing yourself with this silly debate right now.

You must be bored.

And claimed to know what I said. Google's not that tough to use.

Dude, I don't respect you enough to prove the answer to a question YOU asked me.

If you don't believe something I'm saying about MYSELF that YOU asked about, that's your fucking problem.

Good luck grasping for some sort of win in this conversation though.

Keep going. It's entertaining.

>Dude, I don't respect you enough to prove the answer to a
>question YOU asked me.

Right, and Rjcc doesn't respect you enough. So he doesn't have to go get shit to prove it.


>
>If you don't believe something I'm saying about MYSELF that
>YOU asked about, that's your fucking problem.
>

A principle that applies well to your exchange with Rjcc. I don't have a problem, I'm highlighting your hypocrisy, and you're being a fabulous assistant.

>Good luck grasping for some sort of win in this conversation
>though.
>
>Keep going. It's entertaining.

I will, I'm glad you're enjoying your L.

You've lost yourself in this and you don't even realize it.

Tough luck bro. I hope you find your way back to your point.

I'm not you.

>You've lost yourself in this and you don't even realize it.

Same applies here to

>
>Tough luck bro. I hope you find your way back to your point.
>

It's there still, and you've made no dent in it. I'm making a record of that.

>I have made no accusation, the two of you have. Burden of
>proof is on you.
>

Other than you not being able to back up a claim you made with proof.

>You know, the way the state has the burden.

Actually, I think any claim ought to be backed up with proof. Anyone can say anything about themselves. Bit empty if they can't provide examples.

>
>It isn't, "I know you did this, prove to me you didn't."

You're right there, I asked if you did something, you said you did, but can't provide any proof. I asked a question, you made the claim, the burden is on you.

>Do your own research. I know who I am and what I've said. If
>you don't believe me, find the contradiction.
>
>If you're not willing to, tuck your shit and move on.

I asked a question, you made a claim, and you can't back it up. If you're not willing to, I guess Rjcc is right to make his claims likewise.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You can really kick rocks with this "I made a baseless claim, had to backtrack, but somebody else tried to back me up, but he can't back it up, so now you prove that both of us are wrong, and if you won't waste your time by providing us proof of the opposite of what we haven't backed up YOU'RE the one that's lying"

FOH.

>You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
>

Oh, ducking the question now, full of demands that people answer your questions or be full of shit by default but can't live by your own rules. Figures.

>You can really kick rocks with this "I made a baseless claim,
>had to backtrack, but somebody else tried to back me up, but
>he can't back it up, so now you prove that both of us are
>wrong, and if you won't waste your time by providing us proof
>of the opposite of what we haven't backed up YOU'RE the one
>that's lying"
>
>FOH.

Any time you want to show where I accused you of anything baseless in this thread, do it, I'll wait. I asked questions that you can't answer with proof and now you're mad.

Thanks for underscoring it with a cop out.

Do better.

Seriously.

Because you suck at reverse psychology.

lol

Read better.

I want a nice long example of your hypocrisy for the next time you try the "show me where I said" tactic. Because next time you do, I'll be sure to show you just how quick you punk out when asked to do the same. Rjcc's well within his rights to stand by what he said. You keep underscoring it with each weak comeback.

The fact that you're riding the dick of an asshole like rjcc has shown everyone all they need to know about you.

Your faulty logic isn't impressive. It's actually quite sad and desperate.

And this is the last I'll say on this.

If you make a claim about someone else, which that psycho did, you need to be able to prove it or else shut the fuck up.

However if someone asks YOU a question about YOURSELF and they don't believe YOUR answer, unless they are in a position of power influence or some other high regard (which you of course are not), you have no reason to do THEM the honor of proving it to save them the time of their own homework on YOU.

I didnt come out the gate with an unprompted claim about myself or anyone else. If and when I do I refer to a post. There's no hypocrisy. You asked me a question and then asked me to prove my answer. But who the fuck are you?

I could easily off the top of my head pull up the Beverly Johnson post where I made it clear I believed her, for example. But you're not worth the search and link. If my word about myself isn't good enough for YOU, that's your problem.

If you don't understand that and see the clear difference between the two scenarios, you're just an idiot.

>The fact that you're riding the dick of an asshole like rjcc
>has shown everyone all they need to know about you.

I get that you don't like him relying on a principle that you follow yourself, but that doesn't make him any more of an asshole than you are.

>
>Your faulty logic isn't impressive. It's actually quite sad
>and desperate.

And yet you've got nothing to comeback to it other than cop outs.

>
>And this is the last I'll say on this.

As a guy on a cop out is often prone to do.

>
>If you make a claim about someone else, which that psycho did,
>you need to be able to prove it or else shut the fuck up.

No, you made a claim about me in here, which you haven't backed up. So if you don't need to prove it for it to stand, neither does he. Thanks for playing and losing again.

But even before that, Rjcc made a claim about activity on this board and wasn't prepared to search to prove it. So did you. Therefore, it's not necessary to go back and prove anything for it to be true then. You might want it to be some other way, but to put it your way who the fuck are you?

>
>However if someone asks YOU a question about YOURSELF and they
>don't believe YOUR answer, unless they are in a position of
>power influence or some other high regard (which you of course
>are not), you have no reason to do THEM the honor of proving
>it to save them the time of their own homework on YOU.

Yeah, you answered my questions until you got one where the answer didn't suit your narrative, then you tried to weasel your way out. That's fair, I'm not saying you can't do that, but I'm going to call it out.

>
>I didnt come out the gate with an unprompted claim about
>myself or anyone else. If and when I do I refer to a post.
>There's no hypocrisy. You asked me a question and then asked
>me to prove my answer. But who the fuck are you?

And Rjcc is entitled do say who the fuck are you as well. Yep, good.

>
>I could easily off the top of my head pull up the Beverly
>Johnson post where I made it clear I believed her, for
>example. But you're not worth the search and link. If my word
>about myself isn't good enough for YOU, that's your problem.

Right, because that would be the same as saying where there's smoke there's fire off of one woman's word against a dead man's silence. LOL. Try reading what I actually said instead of posting from your feelings. Also, please check the dictionary for the definition of plenty.

>
>If you don't understand that and see the clear difference
>between the two scenarios, you're just an idiot.
>

You made a claim about me and still haven't backed it up. If you can't see the correlation between that scenario and the one you're riding so hard for...

And, I don't have to care about your arbitrary distinctions that you use to serve your purposes. I say two people made a claim and didn't back them up, but one of them wants to have it both ways.

You used a statement that I made to insinuate that people believing an accuser is a new concept, which would insinuate that I was one of the people who previously didn't. But when you realized that I wasn't one of those people you had to quickly back off of it.

This isn't the first time you had me fucked up and had to admit it. If you would like I can PROVE that to you too.

>You used a statement that I made to insinuate that people
>believing an accuser is a new concept, which would insinuate
>that I was one of the people who previously didn't. But when
>you realized that I wasn't one of those people you had to
>quickly back off of it.

Where there's smoke there's fire isn't your special quote, you know. I asked a question, used an analogy you used in the post to describe a principle. It wasn't insinuating "that people believing an accuser is a new concept" it was to remark upon how blanket the acceptance of one woman's word was in this post compared to Cosby's situation. You hit dogged, I set you straight and asked a follow up question and your answers fell apart under scrutiny.

Thus, you haven't shown where I've accused you of anything, just lied about what was actually said to spare your feelings.

>
>This isn't the first time you had me fucked up and had to
>admit it. If you would like I can PROVE that to you too.

Yep, and I owned it, unlike you. I actually stick by my principles in that respect.

regardless of it not being a unique statement ws just a coincidence...

If you say so.

And for the record, no, I don't expect you to disprove what I'm saying about YOU.

See how that works?

>regardless of it not being a unique statement ws just a
>coincidence...
>
>If you say so.

I saw you say it. I used the phrasing. I've explained this already. My post was a series of questions based around the phenomenon of smoke = fire, which was hotly contested despite many more accusers and a lot more smoke where Cosby was concerned. If you got in your feelings because of my questions that's your problem, not mine. I explained my method. You were free to answer the questions in your favour or not. Skipping to an accusation of something I didn't say was extra.

>
>And for the record, no, I don't expect you to disprove what
>I'm saying about YOU.
>
>See how that works?

You appear to be refuting something I'm not disputing. I'm not saying you expect anything from me, I'm not thinking about your expectations of me at this point.

If you don't find it reasonable for me to have thought that was a shot at me, considering I'm the only one that said that in this post, I don't know what to tell you.

Personally, I think you're lying to save face. Personally I think you tried to throw a rock and hide your hands.

But again, it's not on you to prove, WHICH IS THE POINT I MADE REGARDING YOU TRYING TO TURN A QUESTION AROUND ON ME AND THEN GET ME TO PROVE MY ANSWER WITH AN EXAMPLE.

That was the purpose of me pointing that out to you.

But whatever, I'm done. Like I said you've gotten so far away from your ORIGINAL point regarding the RAPE VICTIMS that you need to find your way back. That is, if you actually care about the topic beyond trying unsuccessfully to score some points.

Don't feel compelled to prove that one either.

Thanks.

Is that an accusation? LOL, it's a statement of fact of what's happening across the post from what I could tell. What, you didn't say it now?

>If you don't find it reasonable for me to have thought that
>was a shot at me, considering I'm the only one that said that
>in this post, I don't know what to tell you.

That's because you're being simple and thinking this is all about you. I was making a comment about the WHOLE post and the complete lack of doubt across the board. You hit dogging is not my fault.

>
>Personally, I think you're lying to save face. Personally I
>think you tried to throw a rock and hide your hands.

Look, maybe that's how you live your life and what you do when you say things around here. I was reading through the posts, saw your reply, and thought, hey, this whole post is buying into smoke = fire principle, why didn't that happen with Cosby. You can't show how my post means anything else, other than your feelings. Maybe stop thinking so much of yourself and you'll be less confused.

>
>But again, it's not on you to prove, WHICH IS THE POINT I MADE
>REGARDING YOU TRYING TO TURN A QUESTION AROUND ON ME AND THEN
>GET ME TO PROVE MY ANSWER WITH AN EXAMPLE.

Hey, you didn't have to answer the original question, but you did, then got pissy when you had nothing to back up your story, unlike me in here, who has, and you can't wrap your head around either.

>
>That was the purpose of me pointing that out to you.

It's irrelevant, but fine, do you.

>
>But whatever, I'm done. Like I said you've gotten so far away
>from your ORIGINAL point regarding the RAPE VICTIMS that you
>need to find your way back. That is, if you actually care
>about the topic beyond trying unsuccessfully to score some
>points.

Of course we've gotten far away. You keep trying to raise a point I'm not making and I have to slow teach you back to reality. That's fine, I can deal with both your fallacies and my original point. Maybe life would be tough if you were in my situation, I'm fine handling it though.

Actually, my original point was regarding how we believe the accounts of rape victims depending on the perpetrator, but of course you don't want me to come back to that because you'd have to face how poorly you read the original reply I made.

>
>Don't feel compelled to prove that one either.

Backing out because you know this will get slapped aside too? Oh well. Probably why you can't reply point by point but have to keep moving the fire then claim I'm the reason we're so far from the original point. Get your weight up.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Has anyone called for a consistent application of doubt as was
>demonstrated for Cosby?

there's this too.

i mean...

.....smart/dumb niggas; a few straight up trolls; some level headed folks who just want to deal with the facts; some well-intentioned folks who don't seem to understand the difference between judging someone on the information that is KNOWN; and out right idiots in this post....

Again, using nuance and common sense does not equate "giving someone a pass..."

U can easily state that Bowie was wrong for having a threesome with two underage girls in the free for all '70s with the understanding that THAT transgression does not reach the same level of shock than reportedly drugging nearly 50 women over the course of 50 plus years....It's the same reason I judge the side-eye behavior of Marvin Gaye differently than say R. Kelly (as I've said numerous times in this thread)...Both r black. In fact, very black...

But their misdeeds are certainly not on the same level...At all...

I mean, it seems simple enough, right?

sticks in the same blaze. not no era not no this or that. these are professional signed artists to a major industry and if its looked the other way and it goes on as such well all are in the same boat.

its like a turkey saying so and so had a minor heart attack. if your heart got hit then it got hit.

nuff said. Black or white same is same.


but lets be real no matter what the era or skin color its a Boys will be Boys mind set and its been accepted by society at large.

let a woman have the same baggage and see what would have happen?

Janet Jackson alone for what went done with timberlake almost got outlawed.

No...that's not how life works...

If I steal a $200 gold chain then I will get arrested, then fined and let go....

If I steal a diamond encrusted Rolex watch I will get into some serious legal problems....More serious than just stealing gold chain...I will have to hire a good lawyer...

This is the way life works, Maxx....

Bowie and Marvin will be judged differently than Kellz and Cosby...That's just the way it is....

On an even bigger level Nixon is judged differently than Bill Clinton...Both did some pretty disgraceful shit in the White House....But their transgressions are not on the same level...At all...

stealing is stealing and it counts against you period.

like a white lie and a big lie ok.

cosby is damaged Yo, I think he is one of the Greatest Comedians, a Black RUshmore figure with Michael Jackson, Quincy Jones and Oprah Winfrey, however Brother man is toast.

his cosby shows, movies, etc.. is now in the Hood in a swapmeet.


Cosby gotta go and stay in his cave.

as for Bowie, he got his pass,but not everybody is all happy with him believe me.


Marvin Gaye does get a sideeye and the last few years of his life didn't paint him in a great picture, still people always give love for music and overall greatness and all 4 will be given that respect for their talents, however they all in the same boat.

i had a homie catch much heat over jacking sterling silver and it depends on where you live,etc...

i know how life works out here in these streets Man.

and lets place him in the 70's
do you really think his actions would be acceptable even then?

the lying to get married to aaliyah, the sex tapes, the peeing in that girl's mouth (and then rapes her), fuckin his goddaughter, hanging out in high-schools to pick up young girls and all that shit

you want to tell us this was acceptable even in the 70s?
where's proof of this?

while at the same time
they want to give the black man (cosby and kellz) a pass
because the white man did it too.


are we this fucked up in the head? this some ptsd type logic

>they want to give the black man (cosby and kellz) a pass
>because the white man did it too.

Rjcc is rubbing off on you now.
The only thing said was that everyone deserves the "judgment", if you will,
for the same offenses. Yall respond with "Nope! Sure, we ignored the
white offender and victims, but if you call us on it, it's all about
the victims and you don't care about victims!"
Um... neither did yall until we called yall on your white supremacy.
Foh.
It's a damn given that rape is terrible and the victims need support.
Only terrible fucking people need to keep reminding themselves of that,
so yall can take a look in the mirror and kill all this shit.

https://media.giphy.com/media/AxVvk8Q6ILwsSOUz7y/giphy.gif

Game.Set.Match.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

turkey please wrong for one is wrong for another unless you got a horse in the race.i don't care if its Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye,R.kelly,Jackie Wilson,Steven tyler, Bowie,etc.. i respect and admire the music talent, etc.. and always done as a fan of the talent,however that other is real and i don't condone that. and it don't matter to me if the tv set was in black and white or hi def its still the same period.

Gotta admit...I'm utterly disgusted. The cult of celebrity is real.