← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 5285 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2003-03-02
2003-03-02 01:11 | User Profile
Lecherous Celebrities Living It Up
By Michelle Malkin
The reviews are in: Motown and Hollywood are head over heels for two men with unabashed penchants for young girls.
R. Kelly, an R&B singer out on bail for 21 counts of statutory rape and child pornography, topped the music charts this month with his new sex-drenched album, "Chocolate Factory." Motown Records President Kedar Massenburg recently gloated to the Associated Press: "He's probably more popular now than during 'I Believe I Can Fly'" (a reference to Kelly's breakout 1996 single).
Roman Polanski, the fugitive bail-jumper and convicted felon who pled guilty to forcing a 13-year-old girl to have sex with him in Jack Nicholson's hot tub nearly three decades ago, recently garnered seven Oscar nominations for his latest film, "The Pianist." The victim herself now says she has no "hard feelings" and is joining the chorus of Polanski supporters urging Academy Award judges to "judge the movie, not the man."
Sorry, no can do. These famous Lotharios are unrepentant and living large, and the message to young girls is loud and clear: Pedophilic celebrities are above the law.
Kelly, who appeared in a widely circulated videotape in which he allegedly engaged in sexual acts with a 13-year-old girl, is famous for his pop gospel tunes and raunchy anthems ("Sex Me," "Your Body's Calling," "Bump 'N' Grind," and "You Remind Me of Something" -- e.g., "You remind me of my Jeep, I wanna ride it.")
Kelly was briefly married to the late singer/actress Aaliyah, when she was 15 years old. (He titled her debut album, "Age Ain't Nothing but a Number.") Last month, he was arrested in Florida on an additional 12 counts of child pornography. But the critical raves and commercial success keep coming.
Reviewers have deemed Kelly's new album "creepy" but "well-crafted." A New York Times writer described it last weekend as "elegant and strange," and "full of graceful slow jams and bubbly club tracks."
Bubbly? Kelly's work reeks of in-your-face pedophilia chic. His new single, "Ignition," implores: "Girl, please let me stick my key in your ignition." On another track, Kelly dubs himself the "pied piper of R&B." "Anything you want, you just come to Daddy," Kelly hisses.
If Kelly is the pied piper of R&B, Polanski is the pied piper of cinema. He admitted openly in an interview last month with the Evening Standard of London: "Even at school I had penchant for younger women. My friends thought I was silly. . . . But I always liked them young, romantic and innocent."
Like the actress Nastassja Kinski, whom Polanski seduced when she was 15 years old.
And like 13-year-old Samantha Geimer (nee Gailey), whom Polanski lured to Nicholson's mansion in the spring of 1977 with promises to photograph her for a French fashion shoot.
Polanski plied her with champagne and Quaaludes before brutally raping her in Nicholson's whirlpool. He was quickly arrested and charged on six counts, including committing a lewd or lascivious act, perversion, sodomy and rape by the use of drugs. After a plea bargain, he copped to statutory rape and the other charges were dropped. While on bail, he fled to Paris and never looked back. In his autobiography, Polanski defiantly claimed that Geimer was a willing participant -- an assertion she categorically denies.
Geimer, now married and the mother of three, has recently stepped forward to describe the scary assault: "It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl." She insisted in an op-ed published last weekend by the Los Angeles Times, "[ "Judge the Movie, Not the Man." by Samantha Geimer, February 23, 2003] however, that Polanski "should be honored according to the quality of (his) work. . . . I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me, or what he did to me.
With all due respect to Geimer, our justice system cannot just let bygones be bygones because she has moved on emotionally. Polanski and Kelly's legal and cultural nose-thumbing are of a piece. They are predatory males first, artists only after. Polanski has made a glorious living precisely because he has never paid the consequences for what he did to violate an innocent girl.
As for Kelly, perhaps he should follow in the untouchable Polanski's footsteps: Fly to Paris, keep the bubbly flowing, and party on for "art's" sake.
Michelle Malkin is author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelowââ¬â¢s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
url: [url=http://www.vdare.com/malkin/living_it_up.htm]http://www.vdare.com/malkin/living_it_up.htm[/url]
2003-03-02 04:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 2 2003, 01:11 **
R. Kelly, an R&B singer out on bail for 21 counts of statutory rape and child pornography **
"Statutory rape" is not rape. When sexual encounters are consentual, that is not rape. Rape can only be called so when it's against the person's will. With that said, I am not surprised that R.Kelly is off the hook. After all, if this were a White male...
2003-03-02 04:45 | User Profile
Most of these so-called "statutory rape" case are case of forced rape, where the charges are reduced as in the Polanski case.
Polanski plied her with champagne and Quaaludes before brutally raping her in Nicholson's whirlpool. He was quickly arrested and charged on six counts, including committing a lewd or lascivious act, perversion, sodomy and rape by the use of drugs. After a plea bargain, he copped to statutory rape and the other charges were dropped.
Statutory rape is not hard to prove. All you need need is the girl's date of birth.
2003-03-02 05:03 | User Profile
**The God given right of the Father to slove the problem by fulling the problem full of buck shot needs to be written in to Law. **
I hear ya, Faust...but there's two problems. One is that R Kelly's 'conquests' don't have any idea who "daddy" is; the second is if you're okay with your 13-year-old daughter hanging out in Jack Nicholson's whirlpool, her hymen is not long for this world in even the best-case scenario.
But look at the up side! The Polanski story coming packaged with yet another sobbing-violinist-running-from-the-Panzers movie makes a handy crowbar to demolish THE PIANIST's fake sanctimony with. Hitler wasn't practicing genocide, he was - at worst - over-enthusiastically erring on the side of German girlhood - why, you might call him The Feminist Fuehrer! Adolf Alda.
The other silver lining is as follows:
"White trash always listen to something that they refer to as music, but whatever it is remains an eerie mystery to the rest of the human race. Thatââ¬â¢s why you can never picture white trash celebrating Motherââ¬â¢s Day, kneeling in a Church, making romantic love, reading a book, or listening to R-Kelley or Keith Sweat. Itââ¬â¢s simply unimaginable."
I always knew Glazov's girlfriend was black, but I never suspected she was 12!
2003-03-02 05:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Mar 2 2003, 04:45 ** Statutory rape is not hard to prove. All you need need is the girl's date of birth. **
Polanski actually got quite a bit of support on this forum a while back on some thread. Do a search.
Statuatory rape isn't that easy to prove. The kid might have given their consent. As the famous phrase at the NAMBLA table goes "if it coos it means yes, if it cries it means no" :blink:
2003-03-02 16:45 | User Profile
In most, if not all, jurisdictions, consent is not a defense. There is still a very important issue aside from the girl's age, or consent, in any statutory rape (or substantially equivalent)- it's whether the act actually happened, and if so, whether the accused is the individual who committed the act (though identity of the perp is rarely an issue in a statutory rape case)
2003-03-02 18:38 | User Profile
What goes on in this thread? Y'all need to watch more daytime talk shows. To convict on statutory rape, you need only prove that sex occurred and the girl was underage at the time. Neither consent nor ignorance of the girl's age or of the law is a valid defense. Statutory rape is somewhat misnamed, as it's usually not rape at all, but rather sex with a minor, but that's how it's traditionally prosecuted.
Darkey: I don't see what you find so freakish about reminding everyone how depraved Jewish Hollywood is, especially when it comes to its negro sex-music stars.
2003-03-02 20:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 2 2003, 13:04 Malkin is a freak not merely because of this bit of rumour-mongering
He's been officially charged with over 20 counts of statutory rape and child pornography. I think it's gone a little beyond 'rumor'.
but also because of her bizarre message to the troops and her equally strange comments about Christina Aguilera that suggested appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone with the hint of nudity was some sort of perverse act (at the same time noting that Aguilera has 'light skin.')
As for that article, Malkin was basically pointing out that Aguilera is both a dirty whore (a product of feminism), and a white mestiza-wannabe (a product of the bemexification of America). In healthier times, a white girl like Aguilera would not be shown naked on magazine covers (in view of Malkin's 2 year old daughter incidentally), talking about how she prefers sex with coloreds, and flaunting her "hispanic heritage". This is all perfectly reasonable for a mainstream-paleo like Malkin to discuss.
No, having sex with a 13-year old is not freakish--what is freakish is that this a felony offense, and something discussed by the media when it's only the buiseness of the girl, her lover, and her parents.
What is this, Africa? Having sex with a 13 year old girl is freakish, and would be considered so by any civilized society where technology has extended our life expectancy so. Thus the laws against it, written by white men of a healthier generation. And the fact that you call her molestor her "lover" is frankly sickening. Go back to NAMBLA, Darkey.
Drakmal
2003-03-03 04:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 2 2003, 22:02 **
It may be exciting for you to term sex with 13-year old girls 'freakish,' but the fact remains that such acts are well within the norms of human sexual behavior, and have a long history.ÃÂ 13-year old can have kids for a reason.ÃÂ I agree the behavior is wrong, and should be outlawed--though not as a felony crime--but that is another story.
**
It may be exciting for you to establish norms for Western sexual behavior, but let's strap on some real objective truth here.
Anyone stepping anywhere near my daughter when she is 13 while spouting your version of social/sexual norms will quickly find themselves part of the history you so admire.
That's the whole story, friend.
2003-03-03 04:25 | User Profile
13 was the age of consent in New Mexico when I lived there and still is, so far as I know.
Check here for the age of consent in your state:
[url=http://www.arsenalvideo.com/read/061001-fyi.html]http://www.arsenalvideo.com/read/061001-fyi.html[/url]
2003-03-03 04:27 | User Profile
It may be exciting for you to term sex with 13-year old girls 'freakish,' but the fact remains that such acts are well within the norms of human sexual behavior, and have a long history. 13-year old can have kids for a reason.
Fun fact: Quite a few 13 year old girls are not yet pubescent. Even fewer were in the past.
Fun fact: A great number of 13-15 year old girls who do become pregnant are permanently disfigured by it. Just because you can physically become pregnant that early in life doesn't mean that it's a good idea in the least.
You're right that there is a reason 13 year olds can become pregnant, which is that at times in human history the average lifespan has been around 18, and if we weren't physically capable of breeding earlier when necessary, we might not be here. That doesn't make it 'normal', but an act of desperation.
Aguilera did not really appear naked, she was totally obscured by her guitar.
Malkin: Aguilera's privates are strategically hidden behind a guitar; her backside is tastelessly, tritely, exposed.
As for the rest of your post, calling it a failed attempt at comedy would be generous.
Drakmal
2003-03-03 04:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 2 2003, 23:33 **
I enjoy watching you dismiss the breeding practises predominate throughout human history as abnormal.ÃÂ Likewise, your view of our present, technologically augmented lifestyles as the norm betray an equal degree of idiocy.ÃÂ
**
Christianity therefore qualifies as an abnormal augmentation, due to its lack of dominance (or existence) throughout most of human history.
2003-03-03 05:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 2 2003, 22:33 I see that you have largely failed to deal with me points. Yes, don't hurt yourself.
You misspelled 'red herrings'.
As to your implications that significant numbers of 13 year olds have not hit puberty--what a lot of malarkey.
"... the average age of the onset of menstruation -- 12.88 years -- has not changed in white American girls ..." [url=http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Early-Onset-Puberty.htm]http://www.mindfully.org/Health/Early-Onse...set-Puberty.htm[/url]
"It is important to remember that fertility (often present as early as 12 years of age) [...]" [url=http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001950.htm]http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/ar...icle/001950.htm[/url]
"Puberty can start as early as 9 years old and as late as 17 years old." [url=http://www.mindbodysoul.gov.uk/sexual/puberty.html]http://www.mindbodysoul.gov.uk/sexual/puberty.html[/url]
"The physical changes of puberty occur somewhere between the ages of 9 and 16. The first sign in females is breast development, which usually occurs between ages 8-14, with an average age of 11-12. Pubic hair appears, on average, at age 12-13. Menstruation usually occurs one to two years after pubic hair growth." [url=http://jaxmed.com/ask_a_doc/answers/answer1300.htm]http://jaxmed.com/ask_a_doc/answers/answer1300.htm[/url]
Have you taken middle-school math yet, Darkey, or do you want me to explain to you what an average is, how numbers spread around it, and how it is not a synonym for normal?
As to you claims that a 15 year old is much likely to be harmed by pregnancy than a 21--more errors.
Since you picked the higher number I quoted, I'll assume you agree when it comes to 13-14 year olds. Not that it matters:
"Maternity-related complications are among the leading causes of death for women aged 15- 24 in Africa, especially in the younger ages. Young women under the age of 18 are 1.5 to 2 times more likely than older women to die due to pregnancy-related causes." [url=http://www.siecus.org/inter/nigeria/nige0002.html]http://www.siecus.org/inter/nigeria/nige0002.html[/url]
Also, [url=http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml]http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml[/url] has a nice chart that I'm too lazy to reproduce here, and [url=http://www.fhi.org/en/ctu/adoltpm/pages/18.html]http://www.fhi.org/en/ctu/adoltpm/pages/18.html[/url] has a nice slide with explanatory text.
I enjoy watching you dismiss the breeding practises predominate throughout human history as abnormal. Likewise, your view of our present, technologically augmented lifestyles as the norm betray an equal degree of idiocy.
I enjoy watching you defend the practices of black Africans, decadent Romans, and short-lived villagers as normal and healthy.
You cannot rest with viewing sex with 13-year olds as wrong, you must also label it 'freakish.' This is the true act of desperation.
Actually, I was just throwing your own term back in your face. But it fits. According to my dictionary, freakish means abnormal. Would you define sex with prepubescent or barely-pubescent girls as 'normal'?
2003-03-03 10:16 | User Profile
**Thus the laws against it, written by white men of a healthier generation. **
Then you must be referring to the free-love, drop-acid 60s Generation.
The generations of the Good Old Days saw nothing untoward in the idea of married, pregnant 12, 13 and 14-year old girls.
Social prohibitions against such norms were forced upon the country by those godless cosmoplitans residing in the cities [as Ragnar and others pointed out]. Sorry - but it's not as easy as doffing your hat to salute generations past. There was good and bad in "healthier generations"; just as there is good and bad in the present one.
2003-03-03 12:29 | User Profile
Statutory rape is theoretically hard to prove, because you have to prove that sex actually occured. This can be difficult if there are no witnesses or videotape, as is normally the case..... However, I have heard a lot of terrible stories where men are convicted on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence -- of course, they probably had court-appointed attorney's.
No, having sex with a 13-year old is not freakish--what is freakish is that this a felony offense, and something discussed by the media when it's only the buiseness of the girl, her lover, and her parents.**
DarkEddy, are you a fan oif Michael Jackson? Obviously you do not have daughters. Yes, girls can and do get pregnant at 13 or earlier but they do not have the maturity to raise and care for children. And I say the same for grown men who harbor secret desires for underage girls. Did you know that the majority of pregnant underage girls are impregnated by men over 21? According to a World Magazine article Planned Parenthood is suppressing such statistics and not reporting illegal conduct to the authorities because it would harm their aborted fetus industry. There are good reasons for statutory rape laws. Also, although a girl may look like a woman, it doesn't mean she has the maturity of one.
Dark Eddy, defending such statments as above makes you suspect and I would not want you anywhere near my children.
2003-03-03 12:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Mar 1 2003, 22:09 ** > Originally posted by Faust@Mar 2 2003, 01:11 **
R. Kelly, an R&B singer out on bail for 21 counts of statutory rape and child pornography **
"Statutory rape" is not rape. When sexual encounters are consentual, that is not rape. Rape can only be called so when it's against the person's will. With that said, I am not surprised that R.Kelly is off the hook. After all, if this were a White male... **
So, you say that if a five year old says it wants sex, then it is okay.
2003-03-03 12:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Mar 1 2003, 23:04 ** > Originally posted by Faust@Mar 2 2003, 04:45 ** Statutory rape is not hard to prove. All you need need is the girl's date of birth. **
Polanski actually got quite a bit of support on this forum a while back on some thread. Do a search.
Statuatory rape isn't that easy to prove. The kid might have given their consent. As the famous phrase at the NAMBLA table goes "if it coos it means yes, if it cries it means no" :blink: **
You support Polanski? Who else here did? I did try to find a search on that thread and could not find it. Why would any man support a pervert who got a 13 year old drunk and had sex with her? Getting a woman drunk to have sex is not getting her consent, no matter her age. If you have children, you must not care much for them. A pervert like him shoild be in jail, being raped daily like the crime he performed on that girl.
2003-03-03 21:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Mar 3 2003, 04:16 ****Thus the laws against it, written by white men of a healthier generation. **
Then you must be referring to the free-love, drop-acid 60s Generation.**
The age of consent was raised to 16 or 18 by almost all states between about 1880 and 1920, and many states had raised it to 14 even prior to that. I didn't realize the 60s extended that far back.
The generations of the Good Old Days saw nothing untoward in the idea of married, pregnant 12, 13 and 14-year old girls.
Married to boys just a couple years older than themselves, in most cases.
2003-03-03 22:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by weisbrot@Mar 2 2003, 22:07 > Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 2 2003, 22:02 ** It may be exciting for you to term sex with 13-year old girls 'freakish,' but the fact remains that such acts are well within the norms of human sexual behavior, and have a long history.ÃÂ 13-year old can have kids for a reason.ÃÂ I agree the behavior is wrong, and should be outlawed--though not as a felony crime--but that is another story. **
It may be exciting for you to establish norms for Western sexual behavior, but let's strap on some real objective truth here.
Anyone stepping anywhere near my daughter when she is 13 while spouting your version of social/sexual norms will quickly find themselves part of the history you so admire.
That's the whole story, friend.**
Yep. That pretty much sums it up from this corner, too.
:angry:
2003-03-04 00:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 3 2003, 18:37 ** Skemper, I am frightened that you even have children, and certainly would never wish to mix my DNA with those sharing your blood. That you can somehow move from my completely factual description of past breeding practises and arguments that this means sex with very young girls is 'merely' morally wrong, rather than 'freakish,' to the idea that I am to be a supporter of pedophiliac homosexual contact by deranged quasi-black movie stars..... Well, this doesn't suggest a lot of promise for your blood line.
But of course, reversion to the mean works both, ways, so I take that back. You have a nice day, now. **
Your bloodline is the one that is deformed.
I am calling for the members , especially the ones with children, to join me in asking the moderators to ban this pervert.
2003-03-04 02:11 | User Profile
Drakmal:
No, most of those amended ages of consent remained in place up to the 1950s, the 60s and even beyond. Two examples:
Minimum age required for women to marry in Kansas with parental consent: 12 Minimum age required for men to marry in Kansas with parental consent: 14 Minimum age for women to marry in Mississippi without parental consent: 15 Minimum age for men to marry in Mississippi without parental consent: 17 Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000****
Period Summary: South Dakota adopted, in 1976, a new criminal code that repealed the sodomy law and set the age of consent at 13, the lowest in the nation. Two years later, the age was raised to 15, still among the lowest.
If I were so inclined,I could dig up at least a dozen other states with similar consent laws, all after 1950.
2003-03-04 04:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 3 2003, 19:41 **
Note 'freakish' does not mean 'abnormal.' It is much stronger than 'abnormal.' **
Let's use some real-life examples at hand to illustrate the distinctions you're attempting to draw.
A guy from Maryland publicly listing his interests as including both "right-wing theory" and "Lutheranism" could probably be considered somewhat "abnormal".
When that same guy from Maryland publicly lists his age as 27, and adds to his list of interests the topic "teenage girls", he rightly is considered "freakish".
Thanks for the assistance in making this clear.
2003-03-04 05:27 | User Profile
My girlfriend is 19. That makes me a freak? I don't think so.
2003-03-04 05:29 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Mar 3 2003, 20:11 **No, most of those amended ages of consent remained in place up to the 1950s, the 60s and even beyond. Two examples: (snip)
If I were so inclined,I could dig up at least a dozen other states with similar consent laws, all after 1950.**
I question this. There was definitely a [url=http://womhist.binghamton.edu/teacher/aoc.htm]campaign[/url] around the turn of the century, by the original feminists, to establish a age of consent of 16 or 18, and it was largely successful. The legal age to marry was frequently different, and although some states had (and still have) different ages of consent depending on your marital status, it occurred sometimes that you could be married to someone but not yet allowed to have sex with them. Sounds like it was pretty interesting.
Most of the states began liberalizing their laws in the 60s and 70s, repealing sodomy laws, adjusting the age of consent, and making the age of consent and the marriagable age the same, but those laws were clearly in place long before then. Are we talking about different things here?
Drakmal
2003-03-04 06:04 | User Profile
Darke[dd]y, you remind me very much of another person I once argued with. He was similarly fond of reinterpreting words to suit his argument, then going back with his new words and explaining how he "really meant that all along". Quite slippery. I was going to trace a quick timeline illustrating how you've done this, but your earlier messages have mysteriously disappeared.
I'm going to quit arguing about this with you now. You may have the last word. Enjoy!
Drakmal
2003-03-05 15:57 | User Profile
I think that marriage always trumpted age of consent laws. It an underage girl married an older man legally than the age of consent laws didn't affect them.
It used to be, at least in the colonial days, that if you had sex with a girl she could ask a judge to declare the two of you married. That was back in the shotgun wedding days, and was done to enforce high moral standards.
I've heard stories that a lot of young white trash are going around intentionally trying to get impregnated by older men so they can collect child support.