70s rock stars and underage groupies

[ShesMadeATwatOfMePam]

Off the back of the David bowie thread, should modern values count for anything when thinking about the actions of rock stars towards underage (ie 13/14yo girls) who got dressed up to hang around stage doors and threw themselves at rock stars, (insinuation being that they knew what they were doing) or should we accept it's a different time and modern approaches to child protection/young girls being exploited shouldn't stop these people being revered because it was 20+ years ago?

I think that we should absolutely judge these men by modern values because any man in his right mind shouldn't be attracted to 12/13 year old girls no matter what they wear and if it was Dave who helped at guides instead of David bowie then people wouldn't be so quick to excuse him because he was a "musical genius".

Yabu: it was a different time
Yanbu: wasnt acceptable then, isn't acceptable now

For all the handwringing, I think the "later developing" of teenagers might be the lack of a war and it's pressures on society ?

The kids of the 70s were born to the kids of the 40s and 50s who grew up practically overnight, as you tend to when bombs fall and you need to look after your siblings (as my DM had to).

That doesn't make sense - we don't all live in countries which had a same war time issues as the UK did.

It makes sense in most of Europe, far more so in mainland Europe.

It makes sense in most of Europe, far more so in mainland Europe.

Indeed, but it makes no sense at all in the USA for instance.

Some people just grow up faster than others.

@eaglejulesk

It makes sense in most of Europe, far more so in mainland Europe.

Indeed, but it makes no sense at all in the USA for instance.

Most of us on MN aren’t in the USA. We’re talking about the UK.

@Changednamesorry

My dad was in his 20s in the 70s. He always says he hates ot when people say "it was a different time". His take is "it wasn't all right amongst decent men then and it isn't alright amongst decent men now He's right.

Your father is spot-on (and sounds delightful).

One of the powerful scenes in Unforgotten Series 2 was when Tessa, the police officer wife of a child rapist, who had known but tried to maintain she hadn't known about the activities of her DH and his rapist friends, broke down and said of the 80s:

[it was an era when] a rock star could go on telly and be interviewed about his underage girlfriend without getting arrested. We all bought into that – until we didn’t.

It definitely wasn't acceptable then. My mum was a teenager for part of the 70s and she gave me all the same warnings i give my children about men.

Don't forget these girls were often pulled from the audience, so chosen specifically by the musicians themselves. It wasn't just a case of whoever was hanging around the dressing room door. And even if it was, these men were using their power and influence as a veil to get away with abusing children. Just because they were more appealing than Jimmy Savile it doesn't make it ok.

@RuffleCrow

It definitely wasn't acceptable then. My mum was a teenager for part of the 70s and she gave me all the same warnings i give my children about men.

Don't forget these girls were often pulled from the audience, so chosen specifically by the musicians themselves. It wasn't just a case of whoever was hanging around the dressing room door. And even if it was, these men were using their power and influence as a veil to get away with abusing children. Just because they were more appealing than Jimmy Savile it doesn't make it ok.

As a pp said Don't you just love how people who weren't even around in an era are somehow experts, whereas those who lived through it haven't a clue?

Most of us on MN aren’t in the USA. We’re talking about the UK.

I thought we were talking about rock stars and underage groupies, which led to the discussion about teenagers being different then to now - surely that is the same in most of the western world?

Have you actually watched Trainspotting, Fate?

A long time ago, but yes.

It does make it clear that he mistakenly thought she was of age and that hes aware of the unpleasantness of it all. It was also based on a book written in the 80s about earlier events. In the book hes terrified he'l be murdered as a nonce I also seem to remember.

It weird that people are suggesting its fine to change moral judgements depending on the era. There is either one version of morality or none at all surely? why should the era change the ethics of a stiuation? they had the same kind of minds as us in the 70s, they were humans just like us.

There is either one version of morality or none at all surely?

Absolute morality ? Not really. Remember, it was once "immoral" to have sex out of wedlock. Or "immoral" for men to practice homosexuality.

You really, really, really don't want absolute (i.e. other peoples) morality set into law. You really, really don't.

@SerendipityJane

There is either one version of morality or none at all surely?

Absolute morality ? Not really. Remember, it was once "immoral" to have sex out of wedlock. Or "immoral" for men to practice homosexuality.

You really, really, really don't want absolute (i.e. other peoples) morality set into law. You really, really don't.

This.

Seriously?? One version of morality? An absolute definition of right and wrong? OMfg i have read some unbelievable stuff on mumsnet but this has to surely be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen on the forum. I don’t know where to even begin with this? Have you ever (even briefly) studied history, Shakespeare even? Different religions? Have you ever seen the news? Have you actually spoken to anyone else, ever??? And they wonder why critical thinking has almost disappeared!

OMfg i have read some unbelievable stuff on mumsnet but this has to surely be the most ignorant thing I have ever seen on the forum.

How are you finding your second day ?

The hell are you on about Shakespeare for? yes thanks done a lot of philosophy and have a Classics degree and the idea of absolute morality (in the absence of god and religion) is a common one especially in 18/19th century German ideas, so dont try and patronise me by being over dramatic and throwing some random names out you think will make you seem desperately clever. Shakespeare indeed. Im assuming Kant was 'ignorant' to you as well then? or every single religious person?

Anybody finding Moral Absolutism scary enough to require the level of drama in those replies must be a moral coward. Plenty of those about in the 70s and now.

Im talking about the beliefs of individuals, Serendipity. Should I then today judge somebody harshly for their homosexuality if it happened a hundred years ago and somebody doing the same thing today entirely differently?

@Iminaglasscaseofemotion

Absolutely unacceptable. It was only 20 years ago. I would have been 10 and can't imagine anyone in my family accepting at the age of 13 me going out and sleeping with me n twice my age of more. It was illegal then too.

I very much doubt the girls in question kept their parents updated.

We definitely didn’t! My mum didn’t have a clue.

@user1471565182

Im talking about the beliefs of individuals, Serendipity. Should I then today judge somebody harshly for their homosexuality if it happened a hundred years ago and somebody doing the same thing today entirely differently?

You judge people as you see fit, who cares ?

But you trying to enforce your judgement on others ? Do fuck off.

ohhh I see this is from the usual 'musnt judge' crowd. People judge all the time, its how we make intelligent decisions.

Still not clarified if its ok for me to let some predator of a man off with rape of an underage girl because it was 'a different time' in the 70s whilst rightfully condemming those in the present. I suppose that would be a horrifying absolute judgement.

@user1471565182

ohhh I see this is from the usual 'musnt judge' crowd. People judge all the time, its how we make intelligent decisions.

Still not clarified if its ok for me to let some predator of a man off with rape of an underage girl because it was 'a different time' in the 70s whilst rightfully condemming those in the present. I suppose that would be a horrifying absolute judgement.

It wasn’t rape, most of those involved were very willing participants. Hope that clears that up.

It wasn’t rape, most of those involved were very willing participants. Hope that clears that up.

Er, just for the avoidance of doubt that reply to the question directed at me doesn't reflect my views. And I'd like to state that no amount of "willing participation" will ever excuse a man having sex with someone under 16. Never, ever. It is, by definition, rape.