Does Anne Diamond have a point?

[Ilovemyself]

Anne Diamond has been quoted as saying that some of the victims of celebrity sex abuse may have been groupies who hung around waiting for celebs.

Whilst I am not condoning any predetary sex offences, should anyone who wanted a liaison with a "star" be looked at differently.

I'd be interested in how Bill Wyman has escaped investigation to date too.

Anne Diamond's remarks smack of another washed up sleb desperately courting publicity. As she appears to be victim blaming and therefore has nothing useful to add she should have kept her trap shut.

15 year olds used to be seen as grown-up - could leave school, have jobs, etc. The law about age of consent was seen either as totally irrelevant or only there as an added protection for young teens who weren't willing - I doubt anyone thought about it in regard to someone who was willing, just like barstaff then might ask someone's age and pretend to believe them when they said they were 18.

So I'm sure loads of bands were having sex with loads of under-age girls, but I'm not seeing those being berated in the press - only ones where they groped or had sex with unconsenting teens by the standard of the day, and the age of consent is relevant to the story mainly because it's much easier to prove age than whether someone consented 30 years ago, if the case comes to court.

I have no idea whether Anne Diamond is clumsily making the above point or whether she is really suggesting youngsters hanging out with older celebs deserved anything that happened, which I'd be most surprised by from her. Obviously the complainants are going to be people the celebs had access to!

I think Diamond's remark doesn't sit well with today's morality but I do think she's making a valid, if historical, point. Bill Wyman did get away with it - openly, publicly and with the approval of his victim's family, newspapers and most of society in general. If we're trying to understand why others thought they could get away with the same behaviour and why victims didn't come forward at the time, it's useful context.

Anne diamond is plain stupid. A 15 yo is a child, end off-a man should not have sex with a child regardless of whether they do or don't want it.
If these girls so wanted it, then why are there so many upset ladies out there saying how it has affected their lifes!
People like Anna Diamond need to stop airing on the side of these sexual predators.

I am not sure how true that is about 15 year olds being seen as grown-up. When are you talking about because I know my mum left school at 15 and was certainly not considered by herself or her family as an adult. In fact, she wanted very much to leave home as she was so unhappy but stayed until she was 21 because she didn't consider herself an adult until this point. I think the leaving school at 15 was more to do with getting shot of pupils that were deemed un-academic more than anything.

Notcitrus- you explain it well.
I'm also reminded of a lad I was at school with, very good looking and at 15 could easily pass for 18. In the fifth form (year 11 in new money) he was 'going out with ' a 6th form girl and it was common knowledge that she was giving him blow jobs which then graduated to full sex. Technically she is a sex offender, and at the very least should have had to sign the register and be banned from working with children. Not sure how that sits with me tbh. He was another one who I don't think would class himself as a victim ( though I didn't stay in touch with him so can't vouch for that )

But we're not talking about the blurring of the lines here - we're talking about older, predatory men who used their celebrity status to grope children without bothering or caring whether they were underage or not.

Teenage romances are irrelevant when discussing Anne Diamond's ridiculous, attention seeking, rape apologist comments.

"If these girls so wanted it, then why are there so many upset ladies out there saying how it has affected their lifes!"

Sorry to keep harping back to the same example but Mandy Smith was precisely one of those girls. It's taken her 25 years to realise her life was badly affected and that she was exploited but, at the time and despite her abuse being quite public, there were only raised eyebrows rather than an outcry. Even today she hasn't prosecuted Wyman.

So feenie, out of interest, do you not think the law should apply to teenage romances where either the girl or boy is underage and the partner is over age?

Probably not - and I don't know if any cases where the law has been applied to two consenting experimenting teenagers in love, and I don't think that aspect of it is relevant to this discussion, sorry.

I'm talking about the 80s, which I remember well, but same applies even more so in earlier decades. Many of the teachers and other workers in my schools mixed socially with pupils; teachers marrying students was the norm. My uncles and aunts were in relationships or even married at 14, deemed to be capable of a full day's work when not at school, ie grown up.

There's a huge difference between having sex with someone who happens to be young but the younger person considers themselves to be consenting and the older one accepts that consent back when that was deemed acceptable, and activity that the younger person didn't consent to at all, which was considered scummy by lad culture even then, but the respectable judiciary and media were the ones who would claim a girl was 'asking for it' (and rapists would encourage that).

If we prosecuted every over-16 who ever had sex with someone younger, I bet that would be at least 10% of the population now and around 30% back in the 70s, and not help anyone as it would reduce the focus on the predatory rapists and assaulters. Equally, back in the 80s I bet 99% of bar staff served under-age drinkers, but it would be pointless prosecuting them - focus on the publicans and restaurant managers who gave teenagers loads of free drinks so they could get them drunk and try to shag them.

I was wondering the same thing notsocitrus except I would suspect 10% is a conservative estimate .

In the UK, we generally do not prosecute teenage couples where there is only a few years difference in age, as it is believed that the similarity in age means the relationship is less likely to be exploitative.

Whereas some 25 yr old, sleeping with a 15 yr old, may well be viewed differently.

Also, I believe that those aged 13 and under are not deemed to be able to give consent, at all.

So I don't think we need to worry about 17 yr olds being prosecuted for sleeping with 15 yr olds.

Haven't seen the article, but as AD and I are probably of a similar age, I can see what she is saying about groupies. Doesn't make it right. I remember a teacher having a reputation for groping - all we did was make sure we didn't sit in the front seat of his car when he took us on some school relating journey. Never mentioned it to parents - infact I only told my DM a few weeks ago, and she was quite shocked. It was a different environment then - thank goodness things have changed.

His book, The Pleasure Groove, reports how the itinerary of their sell-out 1981 tour to the US would include the respective ages of consent in each state they visited, to make sure none of the chaps got arrested for under-age sex.

^ Dubious John Taylor quote^

Mandy Smith's case has a lot of toxic elements. I feel sad for her.

I would hope these days that a mother giving what masquerades as 'proxy consent' would be seen for what it is - another layer of abuse.

1981 - which would make him 21. Ewwww.

Nick Rhodes would have been 19.

I was sixteen when I lost my virginity to a 28 year old. I was curious about sex and encouraged him.

Is the ewwww about them slagging so many strangers or about the age of consent? A 19 or 21 yo shagging a 17 yo would be illegal in some US states. Not a problem in the UK.

That's nice, minniehaha. Irrelevant, mind, but jolly good for you.

Looking at the various ages of consent in US states, they range from 16 to 18, so I can see why they would need to be careful in cases where they could be prosecuted for having sex with a 17 year old.

I was imagining a variance which was more similar to some European countries where they would have to check, for example, whether sleeping with a 13 year old was ok (Spain)

What did Duran Duran do without Google?

My point was should a celeb have to ask for a birth certificate of everyone the sleep with? I know it can be difficult to tell the age of some these days.
M

And back then it was just as difficult.

I'm sure some of them were. Young teenagers are the main group that goes nuts over celebrities.

That simply means that the 'celebrity' has even more of a duty to ensure that they don't take advantage of that. It's not a reason to say oh well then, what could they do, they thought they were old enough...

We have 'think 25' for alcohol. Is is really so unreasonable to keep something similar in your mind if you are a famous person and you know that young people idolise you and that they may only be 14 or 15? Not to ask yourself does this person look 16, but to ask yourself does this person look 18, or 20 or 21.

And not only how old do they look but how are they acting. Are they acting like an adult who is capable of making this choice? Or are they a giggly kid?

Should you ask for a birth certificate? You should certainly be very sure that you are having sex with an adult and not a giggling kid who's totally star struck.

I can certainly tell a 14 year old from a 20 year old by the way they talk, walk, hold themselves and the things they choose to talk about. I wonder why these people can't.

And, you know, you don't HAVE to shag someone just because they're there, if you're not totally sure that they are old enough (or sober enough)