To go to a gig where the lead singer is rumoured to have sexually assaulted young women?

[Whatyagonnadokatie]

So, Ive been very excited to finally see one of my favourite bands live. But... there are very credible rumours on the internet that the lead singer has sexually assaulted young women.

wibu to still go?

Anyone can start a rumour. Nasty rumours flourish over the Internet. I could start a rumour about any man on twitter liking little girls. Doesnt make it true, nor would everyone piling on and retweeting it make it true.

What counts is if there are any police arrests or convictions?

Well David Bowie slept with a 13 year old and no one seemed to care. I think some bands/people get away with things and some don’t. Don’t know why.

So? What's that got to do with whether people accept the behaviour?

Marital rape was not a crime in the UK until the 1990s, it was still immoral before then. It's still immoral in the vast majority of cases where the rapist is never convicted.

Being sleazy is not a crime although unsolicited dick pics should be (!)
Putting your hand on someone's crotch is.

I think the, "here, I'll give you a list of flings that did consent" is also...skeevy. As someone on Reddit said, it's like Dahmer saying, "Here's a list of boys, whose heads I didn't cut off!!!"

But so far he's not legally or factually guilty either.

Ok,
A lot is being made of the age gap. I don’t see it as that big? Our PM is married to a woman 24yrs younger than him…he is quite literally old enough to be her father. To me that’s an ick.

But the woman Butler is alleged to have sexually assaulted by kissing her once without consent was 21 and he was 34 when it happened in 2015. That’s a 13yr age gap, so I’m not feeling the ick.

Katie Perry was 38 when she kissed that 19 yr old without consent on American Idol in 2018.

Im all for saying certain age gaps are unacceptable, but not in favour of there being double standards for celebrity singers or in it being applied retroactively.

The OP wasn't asking if we should accept sleazy behaviour. That's a different issue. She was asking if she should boycott the concert because he has been accused (not convicted) of a crime. Being accused of something doesn't mean it definitely happened, that's what trials are for.

Aww don't worry, the men will be OK as long as they've got you to defend them.

If you are uncomfortable with it, don't go. You seem to be.

In most cases though, legally innocent is also factually innocent. Legally innocent doesn’t mean that “the state cannot impose punishment” it means that a judge or jury have found the accused to be not guilty of the crime(s) they are charged with based on the facts of the case. There is no pretence when a person is acquitted or exonerated, the likelihood is that they are factually innocent.

I refer everyone to Pitchfork article. Singer is not disputing the interactions with all four women. He can't because they have texts. The discrepancy lies between how things went down, but there are always two sides and the truth. It is worth a read because the way it has been written (Her account, his rebuttal, her reaction) is rarely seen.
I give him that. He has addressed each one.
The general pattern and consensus in Canada allegedly is that he is well known for being a fuckboy.

Seriously? What a fatuous comment. Whether he is a man or woman is irrelevant. The nature of the crime he allegedly committed is also not really relevant. The point is that our society is supposed to depend upon 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's certainly not happening here.

If he goes to trial and is found guilty then fair enough, boycott away (even though there have been enough miscarriages of justice for us all to know that's still not 100% reliable). Up to that point he (and any other 'alleged' criminal) deserve to be treated as innocent.

Has no-one on here ever been wrongly accused of anything, serious crime or otherwise?

MN never fails to provide pathetic responses like this day after day after day.

Just because you are obsessed with man vs woman hostility and seeing everything through that lens doesnt mean everyone else is

A person has had some allegations made about them by other people.. Thats it, in a nutshell. Male or female is irrelevant.

Has no-one read 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I've also read the non-fictional crime statistics on the investigation and prosecution of rape and sexual offences. Which are more horrifying.

There is of course, Scotland... "Not proven."

So, OP, are you going?
Did you want endorsement/approval?
You don't need it.
He's an unfaithful creep. He makes good music.
The two can be mutually exclusive.

I am aware if someone apologises and says they will be better, to carry on with the pitchfork means they cannot redeem themselves/what does an apology mean. David Baddiel said a lot about that in his documentary.
I am only scathing/sceptical about Win's statement because it reeks of the PR crisis -aversion person he hired straight away (who has defended the worst... eek).
It would have been better had he just owned it. I'd respect him more than conceptualizing it with miscarriage.

I will not be seeing Arcade Fire

I have. Was detained by security as a suspected shop lifter once. Taken to an office, searched, questioned, then let go with an apology.

Contextualising

Actually if they did it they are plain guilty and it might never ever be proven. Innocent until proven guilty is for a courtroom not personal moral decisions.

Risa Heller.

Only one?

Translation: I'm telling you not to go even though I don't have any knowledge or proof so I feel like a social justice warrior.

I wouldn't go.
Exactly the same as I stopped listening to one of my favourite bands on Spotify when it came out that the lead singer had abused and assaulted multiple women.

His wife is also in the band so really not sure if it will go ahead anyway.

Position of power makes some men think they are entitled to take what they want.

I mean DUH.