Tell Me :
Talk
More proof of how the #metoo movement is misrepresented.
Wyman is full of crap. He’s been around all kinds of women. There is no way a 13 year old kid could fool him about her age. I can’t stand the guy
Some few women do falsely accuse men. They do a disservice to the VAST MAJORITY of women who bravely tell their stories knowing they’re up against disbelief and ridicule. The #metoo movement has been long overdue, and women don’t deserve to be automatically disbelieved, especially when they’re at the mercy of a power differential (which is more often than not).
I would add that contrary to your suggestions, the #metoo movement is harder on false accusers than anyone else, and for obvious reasons.
I feel very strongly about this issue, and I’m sure many other IORR women do, too.
You guys are nuts, you want a leader to tell you that having sex with minors is totally fine???
And boycott anyone that thinks otherwise.
You are out of your mind.
Thank you for your voice of sanity Rebelhipi; this thread seems to expose a somewhat surprising support of criminal behaviour, in some, and certainly a backward-thinking ugliness that while sadly still exists is changing and will ultimately leave these types to the dustbin of history.
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 10:46 by keithsman.
This is just ridiculous, irrelevant whataboutery. Wyman's illegal sexual activity with a child years ago should have flagged him as a sexual offender.
One of the tougher moral questions of any era relates to how much notice you take of events in earlier times when different standards of behaviour were quite acceptable.
For example... If tomorrow (in 2019) you learnt that a famous current performing artist kept 15 slaves in dreadful conditions you'd be shocked and that would probably make you stay away from their work. Understandable.
But how many famous, significant, and much praised signatories of the American Declaration of Independence did just that!
Another example... The origin and development of digital computing (without which IORR would not exist) owes a great deal to the pioneering work of Alan Turing at Bletchely Park in WW2. These days he's praised for his work, but after the War he eventually committed suicide as a result of legal issues that he had to deal with because he was gay. (He has been posthumously 'pardoned', which rather emphasises the point.)
Different times, different mores.
I'm sure I could find other examples.
But the point is that these issues do not readily respond to binary answers of "yes that's OK, we'll continue to admire your artwork", and "No that's damnable, we'll act as if you had never existed."
Personally I am not wise enough to know the right answer, but I am just about old enough and wise enough to know that it's a very hard set of questions.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Totally agree .
...and this issue, as with many a question , gets clouded for many folks by the views of the vociferous few on either extreme side of the argument.
The folks with the sensible views never cause the sensation or make the headlines.
I completely disagree with you. Bill Wyman had sex with a child. That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now. Beyond the hardcore fan forums such as IORR, people are more than happy to form decisive yes/no answers because of the predatory and exploitative nature of such behaviour. I can see no acceptable defence here. Children are off-limits. Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?
As for your example of slavery, it was of course quite legal and socially acceptable to own slaves in the 18th century. That does of course present a problem for people who hold a candle for statesmen such as George Washington and makes it very difficult to reconcile their radical, revolutionary politics with such a racist and evil practice.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 12:15 by Father Ted.
Bravo.
And if I may add to that, the persecution of Alan Turing was wrong then just as much as it would be wrong now. So: it's not a case of "different times, different mores" but "different times, wrong mores".
Not offering a defense, but don't quite agree with this "yes/no-black/white" conclusion, particularly as it pertains to societal acceptance or norms.
Without going into details of the actual relationships (mostly because I don't know them well or care to) there are differences, degrees and era's that are all factors. For example, Elvis started a relationship with Priscilla when she was 14, went on to marry her and what little public controversy that surrounded it went away and his career never suffered. Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin at 13, and the backlash that followed and continues was much more to do with the fact that she was his cousin than her age. They were different times, and what was more socially acceptable then as well as in 1983 is not now.
Your post in a way confirms this.."That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now." followed by "Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?" Which implies that we should be past that as we have or should have as a society progressed. And we have. Thankfully.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 14:07 by MisterDDDD.
As noted above, at least in Italy (but not only in Italy), in this very year 2019 (not in the past century) a 14 year old is NOT considered a "child" and it is NOT a crime if a 18+ years old has sex with a consenting 14 year old.
Under all accounts Bill Wyman is NOT a pedophile, and to suggest the contrary is vile.
We can discuss for ages if at 14 y/o one is mature enough to have sex, but as a matter of fact, sex at this age happens, and quite often too. Just to give an example, a couple of weeks ago a large portion of the class of the child of a friend of mine (max age 14/15) was involved in nothing less than a blow - job competition in the toilets of the school ... Parents found out because footage of the competition was circulating in the various chats of the kids.
One might argue, and rightly so, that even if considered legal, it is not "good" if a 14y/o dates a 47 y/o.
I, the father of two girls, now age 8 and 10, would be the first to shoot at sight if this happened to my girls.
Yet, what is considered "good" or "wrong" is based only on what normally happens. Normally our brain works in such a way that 14 y/olds consider a 47 y/o too "old" to be attractive, and 47 y/olds would consider a 14 y/o too young to be attractive.
But there are exceptions, and there always have been.
Who are we to judge?
C
We are not talking about rape. He had sex with a child. What would you do if a man was dating your 13 year old kid?
Spot on.
Of course I would tell that man to go away and not to come back - the reaction of Mrs Smith's mother was different. Anyway, it lies in the past.
Yet, this is not a case of censorship.
The news is that Bill's docu was pulled from the festival, allegedly (i.e. not confirmed) because "the festival received a number complaints on social media about screening the film about Wyman, particularly regarding his previous relationship with Mandy Smith".
I don't agree with the complainers, but we live in a free world, and everyone can express an opinion.
If the speculation are confirmed, let's blame the cowardliness of the festival organizers
C
Yes but it then still effectively remains censorship by a form of mob rule.
Surely Just as odious as any other form of censorship ?
Well, you must be a treat at parties. Let me get this straight.....it's a "liberal elite movement" for women to have a new platform to advocate for themselves? Mandy Smith isn't even speaking out about this, but if she did, she would be well within her rights and the last thing of concern would be the censorship of the art, good lord. That's your priority? Yet you say your are "all for the imprisonment of all pedophiles..." but you are ok with underage groupies in the 60's. Which is it? As you said, "we learn from our mistakes". Having consequences for bad behavior isn't pretending it never happened, but moving on without response is. Sometimes that means we tear down a statue or we cut ties with an artist. That's not pretending it never happened, that's doing the right thing. When you know better you do better. I'm not sure what should be done with the Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith story, I really don't. But you better believe Bill knew better, and didn't do better.
You argue...oh, but it's so widespread, we'd be censoring everything. Think about what you are saying. It's just too much, oh well....the floodwaters are just too high, forget the sandbags...just let it happen I guess....rock on! It's a fun side story for me and doesn't directly concern me, it's just part of the glory of rock and roll.
The idea of putting art, legacy or history above the well-being of others is unbelievable to me. If that's being "liberal elite" than I'm guilty as charged.
Lastly, the title of this thread alone is proof of the need for the movement. "Wyman hit by...", as if he's the victim. Come on.
-----
The film festival made it's decision. That's their choice as a festival. Whether it was right or wrong has been argued for pages and pages. The well being of others is affected by the idea that such films or any other art is often deemed more important to society than people's experiences and the actions of others. And that's exactly what I mean by perspective in these issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 17:24 by floodonthepage.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 26, 2019 02:47
Quote
MKjanQuote
keithsmanQuote
Glam Descendant
I have no idea how to parse that last post.
I'm just pulling your leg mate.
Not sure how to change a title thread as i never start threads, sorry i can't help you, i wouldn't worry about it, it's kept us all busy and BV has been kind enough to let it run.
The horrible PC forces would say pulling someones leg is sexual harassment.
More proof of how the #metoo movement is misrepresented.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
buttons67
()
Date: March 26, 2019 02:49
wont give details but i was an unwilling witness to an alleged rape many years ago.
i saw an innocent guy getting dragged through the courts and after many months justice was done. the perpetrator of the false allegations got jailed but much to the inconvenience of myself and the poor guy who done nothing wrong and had to wait a long time for the court date to be set.
today many women make false allegations, ruin guys lives and face no sanctions, yet meetoo stay quiet on that score.
they also say nothing on the horrific increase in rape crime in the city of malmo in sweden in the last 5 years and dont report who the perpetrators are and from which ethnic groups, for fear of being called racist. the facts are there, according to police reports.
so what credibilty do meetoo have, none i think.
i saw an innocent guy getting dragged through the courts and after many months justice was done. the perpetrator of the false allegations got jailed but much to the inconvenience of myself and the poor guy who done nothing wrong and had to wait a long time for the court date to be set.
today many women make false allegations, ruin guys lives and face no sanctions, yet meetoo stay quiet on that score.
they also say nothing on the horrific increase in rape crime in the city of malmo in sweden in the last 5 years and dont report who the perpetrators are and from which ethnic groups, for fear of being called racist. the facts are there, according to police reports.
so what credibilty do meetoo have, none i think.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: March 26, 2019 03:02
Quote
bleedingman
Edit: From a NY Times article about "Stone Alone": "She was a woman at thirteen, and she certainly looked like the twenty-year-old I had originally believed her to have been," he says of his present wife, who in any case is 33 years his junior.
[www.nytimes.com]
Wyman is full of crap. He’s been around all kinds of women. There is no way a 13 year old kid could fool him about her age. I can’t stand the guy
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Aquamarine
()
Date: March 26, 2019 03:36
Quote
buttons67
wont give details but i was an unwilling witness to an alleged rape many years ago.
i saw an innocent guy getting dragged through the courts and after many months justice was done. the perpetrator of the false allegations got jailed but much to the inconvenience of myself and the poor guy who done nothing wrong and had to wait a long time for the court date to be set.
today many women make false allegations, ruin guys lives and face no sanctions, yet meetoo stay quiet on that score.
they also say nothing on the horrific increase in rape crime in the city of malmo in sweden in the last 5 years and dont report who the perpetrators are and from which ethnic groups, for fear of being called racist. the facts are there, according to police reports.
so what credibilty do meetoo have, none i think.
Some few women do falsely accuse men. They do a disservice to the VAST MAJORITY of women who bravely tell their stories knowing they’re up against disbelief and ridicule. The #metoo movement has been long overdue, and women don’t deserve to be automatically disbelieved, especially when they’re at the mercy of a power differential (which is more often than not).
I would add that contrary to your suggestions, the #metoo movement is harder on false accusers than anyone else, and for obvious reasons.
I feel very strongly about this issue, and I’m sure many other IORR women do, too.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
rebelhipi
()
Date: March 26, 2019 04:23
Quote
keithsmanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
stanloveQuote
keithsmanQuote
His Majesty
In time I am sure this will get round to The Rolling Stones and other 60's and 70's bands in a more legacy damaging way.
There's plenty to crucify them about and much of it is not exactly hidden.
Regardless...
I love The Rolling Stones.
That's my worry, we are getting to a time where anything deemed incorrect will be censored, i can see a day in the not too distant future where it will be wrong for anyone to play this music based on the morel high ground of the likes of twitter facebook and Instagram.
We already have Mick changing the lyrics on certain songs, i wonder where it all ends up, the Stones are sexist sort of thing so must be censored etc etc.
People need to step up. Once again a small minority of loud lefties run things and decide what others can watch. The right wing needs a spokesman that we all stand behind. Boycott anyone that caters to the left wing mob. That will end this crap.
Fully agree.
Yes fully agree.
You guys are nuts, you want a leader to tell you that having sex with minors is totally fine???
And boycott anyone that thinks otherwise.
You are out of your mind.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: March 26, 2019 07:04
Quote
rebelhipiQuote
keithsmanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
stanloveQuote
keithsmanQuote
His Majesty
In time I am sure this will get round to The Rolling Stones and other 60's and 70's bands in a more legacy damaging way.
There's plenty to crucify them about and much of it is not exactly hidden.
Regardless...
I love The Rolling Stones.
That's my worry, we are getting to a time where anything deemed incorrect will be censored, i can see a day in the not too distant future where it will be wrong for anyone to play this music based on the morel high ground of the likes of twitter facebook and Instagram.
We already have Mick changing the lyrics on certain songs, i wonder where it all ends up, the Stones are sexist sort of thing so must be censored etc etc.
People need to step up. Once again a small minority of loud lefties run things and decide what others can watch. The right wing needs a spokesman that we all stand behind. Boycott anyone that caters to the left wing mob. That will end this crap.
Fully agree.
Yes fully agree.
You guys are nuts, you want a leader to tell you that having sex with minors is totally fine???
And boycott anyone that thinks otherwise.
You are out of your mind.
Thank you for your voice of sanity Rebelhipi; this thread seems to expose a somewhat surprising support of criminal behaviour, in some, and certainly a backward-thinking ugliness that while sadly still exists is changing and will ultimately leave these types to the dustbin of history.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: March 26, 2019 10:33
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
rebelhipiQuote
keithsmanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
stanloveQuote
keithsmanQuote
His Majesty
In time I am sure this will get round to The Rolling Stones and other 60's and 70's bands in a more legacy damaging way.
There's plenty to crucify them about and much of it is not exactly hidden.
Regardless...
I love The Rolling Stones.
That's my worry, we are getting to a time where anything deemed incorrect will be censored, i can see a day in the not too distant future where it will be wrong for anyone to play this music based on the morel high ground of the likes of twitter facebook and Instagram.
We already have Mick changing the lyrics on certain songs, i wonder where it all ends up, the Stones are sexist sort of thing so must be censored etc etc.
People need to step up. Once again a small minority of loud lefties run things and decide what others can watch. The right wing needs a spokesman that we all stand behind. Boycott anyone that caters to the left wing mob. That will end this crap.
Fully agree.
Yes fully agree.
You guys are nuts, you want a leader to tell you that having sex with minors is totally fine???
And boycott anyone that thinks otherwise.
You are out of your mind.
Thank you for your voice of sanity Rebelhipi; this thread seems to expose a somewhat surprising support of criminal behaviour, in some, and certainly a backward-thinking ugliness that while sadly still exists is changing and will ultimately leave these types to the dustbin of history.
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 10:46 by keithsman.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: March 26, 2019 11:06
Quote
buttons67
wont give details but i was an unwilling witness to an alleged rape many years ago.
i saw an innocent guy getting dragged through the courts and after many months justice was done. the perpetrator of the false allegations got jailed but much to the inconvenience of myself and the poor guy who done nothing wrong and had to wait a long time for the court date to be set.
today many women make false allegations, ruin guys lives and face no sanctions, yet meetoo stay quiet on that score.
they also say nothing on the horrific increase in rape crime in the city of malmo in sweden in the last 5 years and dont report who the perpetrators are and from which ethnic groups, for fear of being called racist. the facts are there, according to police reports.
so what credibilty do meetoo have, none i think.
This is just ridiculous, irrelevant whataboutery. Wyman's illegal sexual activity with a child years ago should have flagged him as a sexual offender.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
CaptainCorella
()
Date: March 26, 2019 11:15
Quote
keithsman
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
One of the tougher moral questions of any era relates to how much notice you take of events in earlier times when different standards of behaviour were quite acceptable.
For example... If tomorrow (in 2019) you learnt that a famous current performing artist kept 15 slaves in dreadful conditions you'd be shocked and that would probably make you stay away from their work. Understandable.
But how many famous, significant, and much praised signatories of the American Declaration of Independence did just that!
Another example... The origin and development of digital computing (without which IORR would not exist) owes a great deal to the pioneering work of Alan Turing at Bletchely Park in WW2. These days he's praised for his work, but after the War he eventually committed suicide as a result of legal issues that he had to deal with because he was gay. (He has been posthumously 'pardoned', which rather emphasises the point.)
Different times, different mores.
I'm sure I could find other examples.
But the point is that these issues do not readily respond to binary answers of "yes that's OK, we'll continue to admire your artwork", and "No that's damnable, we'll act as if you had never existed."
Personally I am not wise enough to know the right answer, but I am just about old enough and wise enough to know that it's a very hard set of questions.
--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 11:42
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
keithsman
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
One of the tougher moral questions of any era relates to how much notice you take of events in earlier times when different standards of behaviour were quite acceptable.
For example... If tomorrow (in 2019) you learnt that a famous current performing artist kept 15 slaves in dreadful conditions you'd be shocked and that would probably make you stay away from their work. Understandable.
But how many famous, significant, and much praised signatories of the American Declaration of Independence did just that!
Another example... The origin and development of digital computing (without which IORR would not exist) owes a great deal to the pioneering work of Alan Turing at Bletchely Park in WW2. These days he's praised for his work, but after the War he eventually committed suicide as a result of legal issues that he had to deal with because he was gay. (He has been posthumously 'pardoned', which rather emphasises the point.)
Different times, different mores.
I'm sure I could find other examples.
But the point is that these issues do not readily respond to binary answers of "yes that's OK, we'll continue to admire your artwork", and "No that's damnable, we'll act as if you had never existed."
Personally I am not wise enough to know the right answer, but I am just about old enough and wise enough to know that it's a very hard set of questions.
Totally agree .
...and this issue, as with many a question , gets clouded for many folks by the views of the vociferous few on either extreme side of the argument.
The folks with the sensible views never cause the sensation or make the headlines.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 26, 2019 11:46
As I wrote earlier, Bill Wyman might have made a mistake. Mandy Smith called his behaviour "immature". Maybe she is right. Yet, he did not keep "15 slaves in dreadful conditions" nor did he rape someone. There are no allegations against him in that direction.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Father Ted
()
Date: March 26, 2019 11:59
Quote
CaptainCorellaQuote
keithsman
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
One of the tougher moral questions of any era relates to how much notice you take of events in earlier times when different standards of behaviour were quite acceptable.
For example... If tomorrow (in 2019) you learnt that a famous current performing artist kept 15 slaves in dreadful conditions you'd be shocked and that would probably make you stay away from their work. Understandable.
But how many famous, significant, and much praised signatories of the American Declaration of Independence did just that!
Another example... The origin and development of digital computing (without which IORR would not exist) owes a great deal to the pioneering work of Alan Turing at Bletchely Park in WW2. These days he's praised for his work, but after the War he eventually committed suicide as a result of legal issues that he had to deal with because he was gay. (He has been posthumously 'pardoned', which rather emphasises the point.)
Different times, different mores.
I'm sure I could find other examples.
But the point is that these issues do not readily respond to binary answers of "yes that's OK, we'll continue to admire your artwork", and "No that's damnable, we'll act as if you had never existed."
Personally I am not wise enough to knowi the right answer, but I am just about old enough and wise enough to know that it's a very hard set of questions.
I completely disagree with you. Bill Wyman had sex with a child. That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now. Beyond the hardcore fan forums such as IORR, people are more than happy to form decisive yes/no answers because of the predatory and exploitative nature of such behaviour. I can see no acceptable defence here. Children are off-limits. Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?
As for your example of slavery, it was of course quite legal and socially acceptable to own slaves in the 18th century. That does of course present a problem for people who hold a candle for statesmen such as George Washington and makes it very difficult to reconcile their radical, revolutionary politics with such a racist and evil practice.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 12:15 by Father Ted.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 26, 2019 12:03
It's the Sheffield film festival organization that made the decision. If anyone should be criticized for it it's them.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: March 26, 2019 12:40
Quote
Father Ted
I completely disagree with you. Bill Wyman had sex with a child. That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now. Beyond the hardcore fan forums such as IORR, people are more than happy to form decisive yes/no answers because of the predatory and exploitative nature of such behaviour. I can see no acceptable defence here. Children are off-limits. Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?
As for your example of slavery, it was of course quite legal and socially acceptable to own slaves in the 18th century. That does of course present a problem for people who hold a candle for statesmen such as George Washington and makes it very difficult to reconcile their radical, revolutionary politics with such a racist and evil practice.
Bravo.And if I may add to that, the persecution of Alan Turing was wrong then just as much as it would be wrong now. So: it's not a case of "different times, different mores" but "different times, wrong mores".
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Stoneage
()
Date: March 26, 2019 13:24
Metoo has had enormous consequences in Sweden. The leader of the second largest theatre committed suicide, TV-stars fled the country, The Swedish Academy fell to pieces. And so on.
At the same time there are mobs on the "social media" outing people. Some people have started to criticize these "public courts". The accused don't stand a chance against them.
At the same time there are mobs on the "social media" outing people. Some people have started to criticize these "public courts". The accused don't stand a chance against them.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
MisterDDDD
()
Date: March 26, 2019 13:43
Quote
Father Ted
I completely disagree with you. Bill Wyman had sex with a child. That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now. Beyond the hardcore fan forums such as IORR, people are more than happy to form decisive yes/no answers because of the predatory and exploitative nature of such behaviour. I can see no acceptable defence here. Children are off-limits. Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?
Not offering a defense, but don't quite agree with this "yes/no-black/white" conclusion, particularly as it pertains to societal acceptance or norms.
Without going into details of the actual relationships (mostly because I don't know them well or care to) there are differences, degrees and era's that are all factors. For example, Elvis started a relationship with Priscilla when she was 14, went on to marry her and what little public controversy that surrounded it went away and his career never suffered. Jerry Lee Lewis married his cousin at 13, and the backlash that followed and continues was much more to do with the fact that she was his cousin than her age. They were different times, and what was more socially acceptable then as well as in 1983 is not now.
Your post in a way confirms this.."That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now." followed by "Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?" Which implies that we should be past that as we have or should have as a society progressed. And we have. Thankfully.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 14:07 by MisterDDDD.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 14:16
Quote
matxilQuote
Father Ted
...
... the persecution of Alan Turing was wrong then just as much as it would be wrong now. So: it's not a case of "different times, different mores" but "different times, wrong mores".
Quite so,
Some things are just plain wrong, almost regardless of the legality, but there are perceived degrees of wrong.
Some behaviours which today cause revulsion for most decent thinking individuals would a few short decades ago have prompted little more than a raised eyebrow.
This doesn't excuse historic behaviour ...but it has to mitigate the degree of censure we apply to those implicated.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 26, 2019 14:24
Quote
Father TedQuote
CaptainCorellaQuote
keithsman
Now wait a minute, i must clarify, i am against censorship, ie, banning Bills new film, i am not condoning under age sex, why would you twist that around to take the higher political ground. I'm not interested in politics, i'm neither left nor right, i just don't want the day to come where the Stones music will be banned because Bill slept with an under age girl, or that Mick slept with an underage groupie in 65'
I mean where does it end, surely the meetoo movement have bigger fish to fry, leave a rock band alone, people have the right to hear their music for ever.
One of the tougher moral questions of any era relates to how much notice you take of events in earlier times when different standards of behaviour were quite acceptable.
...
Personally I am not wise enough to knowi the right answer, but I am just about old enough and wise enough to know that it's a very hard set of questions.
I completely disagree with you. Bill Wyman had sex with a child. That was as illegal and socially unacceptable in 1983 as it is now. Beyond the hardcore fan forums such as IORR, people are more than happy to form decisive yes/no answers because of the predatory and exploitative nature of such behaviour. I can see no acceptable defence here. Children are off-limits. Is that actually still up for debate in 2019?
As for your example of slavery, it was of course quite legal and socially acceptable to own slaves in the 18th century. That does of course present a problem for people who hold a candle for statesmen such as George Washington and makes it very difficult to reconcile their radical, revolutionary politics with such a racist and evil practice.
As noted above, at least in Italy (but not only in Italy), in this very year 2019 (not in the past century) a 14 year old is NOT considered a "child" and it is NOT a crime if a 18+ years old has sex with a consenting 14 year old.
Under all accounts Bill Wyman is NOT a pedophile, and to suggest the contrary is vile.
We can discuss for ages if at 14 y/o one is mature enough to have sex, but as a matter of fact, sex at this age happens, and quite often too. Just to give an example, a couple of weeks ago a large portion of the class of the child of a friend of mine (max age 14/15) was involved in nothing less than a blow - job competition in the toilets of the school ... Parents found out because footage of the competition was circulating in the various chats of the kids.
One might argue, and rightly so, that even if considered legal, it is not "good" if a 14y/o dates a 47 y/o.
I, the father of two girls, now age 8 and 10, would be the first to shoot at sight if this happened to my girls.
Yet, what is considered "good" or "wrong" is based only on what normally happens. Normally our brain works in such a way that 14 y/olds consider a 47 y/o too "old" to be attractive, and 47 y/olds would consider a 14 y/o too young to be attractive.
But there are exceptions, and there always have been.
Who are we to judge?
C
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Cooltoplady
()
Date: March 26, 2019 15:17
Quote
windmelody
As I wrote earlier, Bill Wyman might have made a mistake. Mandy Smith called his behaviour "immature". Maybe she is right. Yet, he did not keep "15 slaves in dreadful conditions" nor did he rape someone. There are no allegations against him in that direction.
We are not talking about rape. He had sex with a child. What would you do if a man was dating your 13 year old kid?
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
keithsman
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:06
I can't believe people keep missing the point of this thread, it's not about Bill being a dirty old man, or you think it's acceptable or illegal or should he be in prison, it's not about that. It's about censoring his music, or censoring Stones music by the Stones if the metoo movement or any other liberal elite movement start going towards all those underage groupies in the 60's, where does it end, censoring history because they were bad people or tyrants, censoring anything that can be received as offensive, you end up living a life that's out of George Orwell's 1984.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the pedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the pedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:13
Quote
keithsman
I can't believe people keep missing the point of this thread, it's not about Bill being a dirty old man, or you think it's acceptable or illegal or should he be in prison, it's not about that. It's about censoring his music, or censoring Stones music by the Stones if the Me Too movement or any other liberal elite movement start going towards all those underage groupies in the 60's, where does it end, censoring history because they were bad people or tyrants, censoring anything that can be received as offensive, you end up living a life that's out of George Orwell's 1984.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the paedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Spot on.Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
35love
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:22
“Again, there is a biological difference between teenagers and prepubescent children.
Neither is okay, but there is a distinction.”
(Quote from another IORR thread)
From personal experience
I fell for the Stones @ 13 years old.
I was 15 years old when Bill Wyman MARRIED MANDY SMITH.
I collected magazines w/ any RS info, had this England front page fancy wedding.
While my mother would have never agreed (or father) to a relationship of this type,
back in the early 80’s parents were looser, shall we say.
My friends and I would walk the streets at night,
take daytime buses to downtown Mpls and walk the city stop in smoke shops,
and we partied right under our parents noses drinking ages were 18 and 19 years old! In the 80’s, we glammed up ourselves high hair high heels and went to clubs.
My stepdad dropped me off when I was 17 at a Mpls dance club that was illegal yet no problem, bye, my friends’ll give me a ride home (actually the bouncer I was dating)
Do I rear my kids different 40 years later? YES.
Neither is okay, but there is a distinction.”
(Quote from another IORR thread)
From personal experience
I fell for the Stones @ 13 years old.
I was 15 years old when Bill Wyman MARRIED MANDY SMITH.
I collected magazines w/ any RS info, had this England front page fancy wedding.
While my mother would have never agreed (or father) to a relationship of this type,
back in the early 80’s parents were looser, shall we say.
My friends and I would walk the streets at night,
take daytime buses to downtown Mpls and walk the city stop in smoke shops,
and we partied right under our parents noses drinking ages were 18 and 19 years old! In the 80’s, we glammed up ourselves high hair high heels and went to clubs.
My stepdad dropped me off when I was 17 at a Mpls dance club that was illegal yet no problem, bye, my friends’ll give me a ride home (actually the bouncer I was dating)
Do I rear my kids different 40 years later? YES.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
windmelody
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:23
Quote
CooltopladyQuote
windmelody
As I wrote earlier, Bill Wyman might have made a mistake. Mandy Smith called his behaviour "immature". Maybe she is right. Yet, he did not keep "15 slaves in dreadful conditions" nor did he rape someone. There are no allegations against him in that direction.
We are not talking about rape. He had sex with a child. What would you do if a man was dating your 13 year old kid?
Of course I would tell that man to go away and not to come back - the reaction of Mrs Smith's mother was different. Anyway, it lies in the past.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:26
Quote
keithsman
I can't believe people keep missing the point of this thread, it's not about Bill being a dirty old man, or you think it's acceptable or illegal or should he be in prison, it's not about that. It's about censoring his music, or censoring Stones music by the Stones if the metoo movement or any other liberal elite movement start going towards all those underage groupies in the 60's, where does it end, censoring history because they were bad people or tyrants, censoring anything that can be received as offensive, you end up living a life that's out of George Orwell's 1984.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the pedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Yet, this is not a case of censorship.
The news is that Bill's docu was pulled from the festival, allegedly (i.e. not confirmed) because "the festival received a number complaints on social media about screening the film about Wyman, particularly regarding his previous relationship with Mandy Smith".
I don't agree with the complainers, but we live in a free world, and everyone can express an opinion.
If the speculation are confirmed, let's blame the cowardliness of the festival organizers
C
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Elmo Lewis
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:29
People used to wish for fortune and fame. Now the fortune part sounds good, but not the fame.
In other words, I would hate to be judged on poor decisions from 30 or 40 years ago - as many in the public eye are.
In other words, I would hate to be judged on poor decisions from 30 or 40 years ago - as many in the public eye are.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:58
Quote
liddasQuote
keithsman
I can't believe people keep missing the point of this thread, it's not about Bill being a dirty old man, or you think it's acceptable or illegal or should he be in prison, it's not about that. It's about censoring his music, or censoring Stones music by the Stones if the metoo movement or any other liberal elite movement start going towards all those underage groupies in the 60's, where does it end, censoring history because they were bad people or tyrants, censoring anything that can be received as offensive, you end up living a life that's out of George Orwell's 1984.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the pedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Yet, this is not a case of censorship.
The news is that Bill's docu was pulled from the festival, allegedly (i.e. not confirmed) because "the festival received a number complaints on social media about screening the film about Wyman, particularly regarding his previous relationship with Mandy Smith".
I don't agree with the complainers, but we live in a free world, and everyone can express an opinion.
If the speculation are confirmed, let's blame the cowardliness of the festival organizers
C
Yes but it then still effectively remains censorship by a form of mob rule.
Surely Just as odious as any other form of censorship ?
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: March 26, 2019 16:59
Quote
keithsman
I can't believe people keep missing the point of this thread, it's not about Bill being a dirty old man, or you think it's acceptable or illegal or should he be in prison, it's not about that. It's about censoring his music, or censoring Stones music by the Stones if the metoo movement or any other liberal elite movement start going towards all those underage groupies in the 60's, where does it end, censoring history because they were bad people or tyrants, censoring anything that can be received as offensive, you end up living a life that's out of George Orwell's 1984.
I'm all for the imprisonment of all the pedophiles and abusers who have caused misery to so many for so long, but it shouldn't end in censorship of art or history, we learn from mistakes we shouldn't bury them under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
Well, you must be a treat at parties. Let me get this straight.....it's a "liberal elite movement" for women to have a new platform to advocate for themselves? Mandy Smith isn't even speaking out about this, but if she did, she would be well within her rights and the last thing of concern would be the censorship of the art, good lord. That's your priority? Yet you say your are "all for the imprisonment of all pedophiles..." but you are ok with underage groupies in the 60's. Which is it? As you said, "we learn from our mistakes". Having consequences for bad behavior isn't pretending it never happened, but moving on without response is. Sometimes that means we tear down a statue or we cut ties with an artist. That's not pretending it never happened, that's doing the right thing. When you know better you do better. I'm not sure what should be done with the Bill Wyman/Mandy Smith story, I really don't. But you better believe Bill knew better, and didn't do better.
You argue...oh, but it's so widespread, we'd be censoring everything. Think about what you are saying. It's just too much, oh well....the floodwaters are just too high, forget the sandbags...just let it happen I guess....rock on! It's a fun side story for me and doesn't directly concern me, it's just part of the glory of rock and roll.
The idea of putting art, legacy or history above the well-being of others is unbelievable to me. If that's being "liberal elite" than I'm guilty as charged.
Lastly, the title of this thread alone is proof of the need for the movement. "Wyman hit by...", as if he's the victim. Come on.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 17:04
In this instance how the hell does screening the Bill Wyman documentary affect the well being of others ? !
That's exactly what I mean by perspective in these issues.
That's exactly what I mean by perspective in these issues.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: March 26, 2019 17:22
Quote
Spud
In this instance how the hell does screening the Bill Wyman documentary affect the well being of others ? !
That's exactly what I mean by perspective in these issues.
-----
The film festival made it's decision. That's their choice as a festival. Whether it was right or wrong has been argued for pages and pages. The well being of others is affected by the idea that such films or any other art is often deemed more important to society than people's experiences and the actions of others. And that's exactly what I mean by perspective in these issues.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2019-03-26 17:24 by floodonthepage.
Re: Wyman hit by "me too"
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: March 26, 2019 17:46
Of course it's their choice, and their festival ...but I suspect they made that choice on the basis of their fear of censure rather than belief.
[And I do know some of the folks involved ]
[And I do know some of the folks involved ]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1761
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10