Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
You're a victim, you just don't know it.

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  

If the allegations are true, was Bowie a rapist?
Yes, clearly. They were underage, end of story.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
If he knew they were underage, yes, but otherwise no.
50%
 50%  [ 4 ]
No. This wasn't rape.
50%
 50%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 8

Author Message
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:42 pm
Post subject: You're a victim, you just don't know it.Reply with quote

Here's an interesting case. In the wake of David Bowie's death, some people have dug up an interview from a few years ago in which a woman, Lori Mattix, claimed that she had sex with him as a young groupie in the early '70s. Given that she was only 15 at the time, this has led some to accuse Bowie of statutory rape. Indeed, the law, then and now, states this unambiguously: if the allegations are true, he did commit rape. The only defence he could have is that he had reason to believe she was older.

The law would say that Mattix was his victim. But here's the catch: years later, now an adult woman, she insists that it was a positive, consensual experience and has no regrets about it. Of course, Bowie couldn't have known that at the time, and from that angle he was as guilty as any adult who knowingly has sex with a 15-year-old. But it does make the question of who is and isn't a victim in cases like these (or, really, any criminal case at all where someone doesn't consider themselves victimised) a complex one.

Here's the story below. What do you think? If her allegations are true, was Bowie a rapist? I'd be interested to know where people stand on this.

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

Edit: Helen Razer critiques some of the reportage of these allegations:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/01/15/razer-bowie-rape-culture-and-how-feminism-became-the-westboro-baptist-church/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1

Quote:
There are currently no published plans for feminist disruption of Bowie’s funeral. But he has been called an “abuser”, a participant in “rape culture” and a “perpetrator of sexual violence” in print, and far worse on social media. The story, such as it isn’t, has now crossed over into mainstream news discussion, and David Bowie will now be widely remembered as a rapist by extreme progressives just as he is reviled as a pervert by extreme conservatives.

At the centre of this non-allegation of rape is a woman, now almost 60, who makes no claim that she was raped. Lori Mattix, whose name is also recorded as Lori Maddox, first publicly told the story of congress with David Bowie in a VH1 documentary back in 2010.

Mattix says she chose to be deflowered by Bowie in his LA hotel suite when she was 15 and the musician in his early 20s. This of course was statutory rape under US law, but it was also, says Mattix, “so fabulous”. Sometimes, such encounters are.  Last November, she spoke at length with the website Thrillist and again recounted a happy experience. In recent days, her cheerful account has been appropriated as evidence of rape.

Mattix, one of the underage Sunset Strip groupies whose sexually competitive culture was documented in the movie Almost Famous, says she does not consider herself a victim. Rather, she recalls membership in a group of women who actively sought rock’n’roll conquests. This friendly game of one-****-manship was recorded in the groupie periodical of the time Starand lives on in the sculptures of Cynthia Plaster Caster, an artist who has been holding and moulding rock’s most notable penises since 1968.

But, the new Feminist Baptist narrative cannot brook these stories of sisterhood and delight.  We must come to understand Mattix as a damaged, self-loathing victim. She’s obviously mistaken about the fun she had, so it falls to us to revoke her consent.

A woman who has made no accusation of rape and has recounted on several occasions a joyous, consensual encounter is deluded.  Whatever she says, we must remember she is in a state of denial because “it is not uncommon for people to sweep this reality under the rug”.  If we forget that this woman was raped, even if she says that she wasn’t, “we become part and parcel of the rape culture we otherwise decry.”

It’s true that Mattix was terribly young and that the age of consent exists for a good reason. But it’s also true that she does not seem to bear the injury many feminists would prefer her to have. She is very glad of the experience, but large numbers of people insist that she should never have had it. Seeing as she did, though, we must make its memory as painful as possible.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...


Last edited by David on Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:54 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

This is why "rape" is such an overused and abused word.

Also, the 70's and 80's were a very different time to now.

She was under the age of consent, it was illegal but no complaint was made so charges were laid. Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith anyone?

I refuse to vote. Fine me. Razz

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

It was against the law then, too, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was it just ok because 'everyone else' was doing it? Are you implying that someone who did the same thing today would be more guilty?
_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 5:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
This is why "rape" is such an overused and abused word.

Also, the 70's and 80's were a very different time to now.

She was under the age of consent, it was illegal but no complaint was made so charges were laid. Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith anyone?

I refuse to vote. Fine me. Razz
There are a lot of people named Bill.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
It was against the law then, too, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. Was it just ok because 'everyone else' was doing it? Are you implying that someone who did the same thing today would be more guilty?


Are you aware of bill Wyman and mandy Smith? They started a sexual relationship when she was 14 and he was 48. It became public when she was 16, they married when she was 18 and then the separated and his 30 year old son married mandy's mum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301867/Bill-Wyman-Police-interested-Rolling-Stones-affair-13-year-old-Mandy-Smith-claims-slept-14.html

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't, but I'm not sure what implications you want me to take from it. It's the same problem really (although I'm not sure it's clear that Smith looks back on these memories as fondly as Mattix does).
_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Morrigu Scorpio

Saving one animal may not change the world, but surely for that one animal the world will change forever!


Joined: 11 Aug 2001
Location: Etosha

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:20 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Question: What is the most overused term in the world currently?


Answer: Victim

_________________
'If you can ride it, hug it or have a selfie with a wild animal, then you can be sure it is cruel. Vote with your feet and don't!!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 6:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets just say she has mixed feelings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1266664/Mandy-Smith-I-DID-sleep-Bill-Wyman-I-14--man-life-God.html

My point is, and I've said it before, you can't look at the past through the cultural lens of the present. What was standard parenting technique in the 70's and early 80's would have CSV on your doorstep today.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

If she was ten and looked back with no regrets, she'd still be a victim. But since she was 15, and pretty conscious of what she was doing, and happy about it, no. The legal age of consent is a device for the law to work. It says nothing about the real capacity of an individual to make good judgements about sex. The age of consent might be 100 if that is the test.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:44 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Umm... have you just redefined the age of consent? Is this a distinction that the law recognises (I think it does, but it's worth exploring)?

The whole point of age of consent (and its enforcement, i.e. the category of crime known as 'statutory rape') is that it doesn't matter how happy a 15-year-old is to engage in sexual intercourse at the time; the point is that he or she is considered mentally incapable to offer informed consent, and I'm not sure that their views 3+ years down the track necessarily change that (though it might obviously affect whether charges are pressed).

Fair enough if you think there's a grey area and that it ought to be treated as such, but I think there's a reasonable argument that we need to treat this as a firm line and deal with it accordingly (with discounts for cases like these where there were mitigating factors).

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

And I refer you back to Wyman/ Smith. How exactly are the authorities to deal with it under English law when there is no complainant?
_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
^ Umm... have you just redefined the age of consent? Is this a distinction that the law recognises (I think it does, but it's worth exploring)?

The whole point of age of consent (and its enforcement, i.e. the category of crime known as 'statutory rape') is that it doesn't matter how happy a 15-year-old is to engage in sexual intercourse at the time; the point is that he or she is considered mentally incapable to offer informed consent, and I'm not sure that their views 3+ years down the track necessarily change that (though it might obviously affect whether charges are pressed).

Fair enough if you think there's a grey area and that it ought to be treated as such, but I think there's a reasonable argument that we need to treat this as a firm line and deal with it accordingly (with discounts for cases like these where there were mitigating factors).


Sure, there was technically a crime committed under the law. In the legal sense, there was a "victim". Morally, however, in the sense of an injured party, there was apparently none. The law needs an age to work with. I have no problem with 16 being that age, as it feels about right. I could also live with 15 under some conditions. It's an arbitrary number which allows the law to work - but morally (and in sentencing) you have to look at the facts of the case, the maturity of the child, who was the driver of the situation, etc

As I read the post, however, it was about people claiming that she was a victim when she felt uninjured. They were apparently making that claim because of the legal threshold, not because of any injury she seems to have sustained. Bu the legal threshold is not really the issue here as no one is talking about prosecution. Presumably they were pursuing the power that comes from appropriating the rights of a "victim".

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Location: Ballarat!

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Age of consent laws are ridiculous, they place an arbitrary value on age as a determinant of the ability to make rational decisions. I would suggest that a 25 year old virgin man having sex with a 15 year old experienced girl is far less likely to understand the consequences of his actions than she is and be able to give informed consent, and yet HE would be the one off to jail in that scenario.

Women will always seek out higher status males, and men will always seek out young, attractive, fertile women. I would suggest the 'age of consent' be simply set at 'post pubescent' and anyone engaging in acts with pre pubescents, whether male or female are charged as paedophiles. Anyone else who hasn't broken any normal rape or sexual assault laws should be free to just go about their business.

_________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

-Aristotle
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Attractive idea, Wokko, but as a the father of a 15 year old girl I don't think she should have been fair game when she hit puberty at 13. A 25 year old man should really find a girl of 16 or go without.

That said, I agree with you in part, and where the girl concerned is (say) 15, I might be prepared to see a non-criminal tribunal review of actual cases in the light of the circumstances, before reference to the courts. That would prevent criminalisation of some men aged eg 18 and inexperienced or immature, who do no real harm when they have relations with an experienced girl of 15.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think age of consent laws are ridiculous. I recall my daughter when she was 14 [shudder] She's now 23 and admits she was an utter little bitch. Daddy threatening to snap the neck of the 19 yr old douche who was stalking her didn't overly help the relationship at the time, but time moves on. Wink

My main point above which seems to have been missed, maybe I didn't express it well enough is that this shit happened in a different time, in a different culture. If the young lady wanted to make a complaint now, no different to Rolf harris, but she doesn't. All these years later and she doesn't. Same as Bill and mandy.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group