advertisement


Dylan accused of sexually abusing a 12-year-old

Remember David Hamilton's photographs? They were in mainstream advertising, certainly raised a few eyebrows, but did not arouse any real outrage.
 
PaulMB said:
Remember David Hamilton's photographs? They were in mainstream advertising, certainly raised a few eyebrows, but did not arouse any real outrage.
Click to expand...
A man was convicted of having obscene images of children, including having books by Hamilton. The conviction was overturned on appeal.
 
stevec67 said:
I don't want this to be true, and I must admit it seems a bit unlikely. For most of the 60s Dylan could have had pretty much any woman he wanted, if he'd had a thing for young girls extending to illegally young girls then I'd have thought that there would be a history of very young partners just over the age of consent. There isn't, so if the alleged incident happened then it appears to be isolated to one person. This seems unlikely, Dylan's (widely reported) choice of women at that time was women around his own age. He doesn't even seem to have put it about that much. Most young men in that position would, we all know.
Click to expand...
Because an isolated person comes forward does not mean there are not multiple offences against children nor does a history of legal aged girlfriends show any defence in this case. I hope it's wrong bit it rarely is in cases such as this.
 
Rockmeister said:
Having been 15 at the time and thus 'of age' a few years later when morals were the same, I can remember, very clearly, a good few incidents of young ladies under age, 'throwing themselves' at the rich and famous (not me, but aquaintances I knew fairly well), all of whom said NO, but the corridors outside back stage 'dressing' rooms were raely empty of ladies from 12 to 22.
And being rejected? That's a long lasting thing for some. Revenge is a dish best tasted cold I read.

Well anyway. I just don't want it to be true.
Click to expand...
Because a girl "throws themselves" as you claim at celebrities does not give the celebrity license to take advantage of a child. Your last line is more in line with your post. Should not matter who the perpetrator is, taking advantage of vulnerable children is the lowest form of human nature.
 
One reason why there are so few complaints against rock stars is that they were sought out by groupies who wanted the experience.

That is quite different from youngsters being drugged and abused against their will.

The onus was then and still is on the adult to ensure the age appropriateness of any sexual partner.
 
This place should be up in arms about allegations such as this not attempting to make sense of why a powerful celebrity of his day had sex with a 12 year girl. I am more concerned this is not an isolated case, it rarely is.
 
Ragaman said:
Because a girl "throws themselves" as you claim at celebrities does not give the celebrity license to take advantage of a child. Your last line is more in line with your post. Should not matter who the perpetrator is, taking advantage of vulnerable children is the lowest form of human nature.
Click to expand...
Apparently it's quite tough for some men to say no when there's a hand down their trousers. I'm not lining up to judge them. Sure now, our morality has shifted, but history needs context or it's just a tale. For that context, you needed to be alive and have some testosterone working in those same years. Judge from there.

This is entirely different to anyone who groomed, preyed on or otherwise used an unwilling or illegal sex partner. Abuse is terrible. But there were, for every one girl abused, maybe 1 who were willing. And then we come to 'why were they' and the answer is because girls were taught that men needed sex, and giving them what they wanted was the right thing to do if you wanted to be liked (all wrong anyway, since post sex most of these girls found themselves alone, cold and frightened I'd guess),so since they were more than happy to do what was needed to beliked, sex it was.

I can quite see how in 2020's the shame and guilt of being that way might wake a few remorseful court cases. Is this one? I have no idea. Was Dylan a predator? I have more idea. I'd guess NO. Does this mean I support predators? What do you think. The worlds a complex place and the moral high ground is crowded out with people who have no idea about reality.

Edited. I had written above 'But there were, for every one girl abused, maybe 100 who were willing'. I was being daft. 1 for one maybe with the 98 in the middle hopefully living normal lives. Apologies.
 
Last edited:
wacko said:
Are we saying the Pakistani grooming gangs around Rotherham that I got so annoyed about were simply emulating BBC Radio 1 DJs ?
Click to expand...


I don't believe the radio1 djs, if true, were grooming them. Still abhorrent behaviour.

Likewise, no one is excusing the behaviour dylan is accused of, we just don't have enough info to know if it's true so have to play the balance of probability. Which leafs me to think it happened, but wasn't dylan.
 
Rockmeister said:
Apparently it's quite tough for some men to say no when there's a hand down their trousers. I'm not lining up to judge them. Sure now, our morality has shifted, but history needs context or it's just a tale. For that context, you needed to be alive and have some testosterone working in those same years. Judge from there.

This is entirely different to anyone who groomed, preyed on or otherwise used an unwilling or illegal sex partner. Abuse is terrible. But there were, for every one girl abused, maybe 100 who were willing. And then we come to 'why were they' and the answer is because girls were taught that men needed sex, and giving them what they wanted was the right thing to do if you wanted to be liked (all wrong anyway, since post sex most of these girls found themselves alone, cold and frightened I'd guess),so since they were more than happy to do what was needed to beliked, sex it was.

I can quite see how in 2020's the shame and guilt of being that way might wake a few remorseful court cases. Is this one? I have no idea. Was Dylan a predator? I have more idea. I'd guess NO. Does this mean I support predators? What do you think. The worlds a complex place and the moral high ground is crowded out with people who have no idea about reality.
Click to expand...
That first paragraph is quite scary. Do you have any hands on experience because your claims seem to suggest this.

Edit, having re-read paragraph 2 i am just astonished this way of thinking without anything to back it up is even considered a personal view.

Underage children can be manipulated in many ways & yes, i do have first hand experience in these matters. You are wrong on every point. A child may think they are willing but they really are not. Any adult taking advantage or even attempting to justify, needs to look deep inside before commenting further.
 
Rockmeister said:
And then we come to 'why were they' and the answer is because girls were taught that men needed sex, and giving them what they wanted was the right thing to do if you wanted to be liked (all wrong anyway, since post sex most of these girls found themselves alone, cold and frightened I'd guess),so since they were more than happy to do what was needed to beliked, sex it was.
Click to expand...
Where were girls taught this? Pretty sure it was not on any school curriculum.
 
MMm so its ok to have intercourse with a 12 yr old, even in the 60's? Not accordingly to my mum, when I spoke with her about it. She's a Dylan fan, but is very suspicious of the allegations...
 
Ragaman said:
That first paragraph is quite scary. Do you have any hands on experience because your claims seem to suggest this.

Edit, having re-read paragraph 2 i am just astonished this way of thinking without anything to back it up is even considered a personal view.

Underage children can be manipulated in many ways & yes, i do have first hand experience in these matters. You are wrong on every point. A child may think they are willing but they really are not. Any adult taking advantage or even attempting to justify, needs to look deep inside before commenting further.
Click to expand...

Oh sure. I lived each day with a hand down my pants. OR, I'm remembering a fairly liberal 'teen hood' with drugs sex and rock and roll. Try not to get all indignant and accusatory. It's just making you look like an ass.
Nothing to back it up? What do want? Reports from the papers? Court files? What will satisfy all that indignation??
And your last sentence? That's awful. You think all children are stupid? Naive? Need your help to make value judgements?
If one of us needs to look in a mirror, it's not me.
 
Andrew C! said:
MMm so its ok to have intercourse with a 12 yr old, even in the 60's? Not accordingly to my mum, when I spoke with her about it. She's a Dylan fan, but is very suspicious of the allegations...
Click to expand...
No. It's always been wrong, and even the craziest and more 'liberal' of the people I knew always walked away when 'under age' was mentioned, but as most of us know, girls too can lie if they think it'll get them what they want.
 
Rockmeister said:
I don't get this. If the rule of law isn't moral enough for you then whose standards are appropriate for the majority to follow?
Click to expand...
It about being a functional human being & having awareness & empathy. It’s not my fault if people don’t have a grounded moral compass, lots of things which are legal can be inappropriate.

It is perfectly legal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with 60 year old bloke, I personally think this is rather exploitative behaviour especially is said bloke happens to be in a position of power (her boss for example).

It seems blatantly obvious to me, it’s about being a decent person; not really my fault if others need everything spelling out as they don’t know how to behave ethically.
 
Ragaman said:
This place should be up in arms about allegations such as this not attempting to make sense of why a powerful celebrity of his day had sex with a 12 year girl. I am more concerned this is not an isolated case, it rarely is.
Click to expand...
At the moment it is an allegation. If it is found to be a fact then we will condemn it. Your post suggests that you know the allegation to be true.
 
Ragaman said:
That first paragraph is quite scary. Do you have any hands on experience because your claims seem to suggest this.

Edit, having re-read paragraph 2 i am just astonished this way of thinking without anything to back it up is even considered a personal view.

Underage children can be manipulated in many ways & yes, i do have first hand experience in these matters. You are wrong on every point. A child may think they are willing but they really are not. Any adult taking advantage or even attempting to justify, needs to look deep inside before commenting further.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying this, I cannot even begin to comprehend that people still think like this.
 
Woodface said:
, lots of things which are legal can be inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Yes I get where you stand. The point IS that you are not a moral judge or a law maker, and those that are, disagree with you. I understand your stance and, now your examples are more specific, appreciate it, but that's not what law IS. It's standards that are acceptable for the society of the time to conform to. You have the intelligence to filter these and be choosier, but many others take them as face value. The law makers know this and therefore have set the 'bar' where it needs to be for the majority to be safe and well treated. You can't have laws that prescribe a code of conduct so safe that no interaction ever happens. You can choose to be more prescribed if you wish, but you can't judge those who follow the rules of those times as wrong doers. (Well you can, but legally, you have no rights to be thought correct).
 
Woodface said:
Thank you for saying this, I cannot even begin to comprehend that people still think like this.
Click to expand...
We are discussing HISTORY. I can't make it easier for you to understand.
You have no idea what I think about the now of things. Times have changed.
As I said above, history must have context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top