# Art Made by Bad People



## CanserDYI (Nov 19, 2021)

So I'm sure a lot of you are falling into this same series of questions I am finding myself ever increasingly asking, but is it okay to like art made by bad people? Can you separate yourself from the artist and still appreciate the story/moral/visual aesthetics/etc.. of a "bad person"?

My specific example is two of my absolute die hard favorite bands, won't mention them as it's not important, the singers are accused of scandals with underage females. This is a hard no for me, absolutely disgusting and deplorable, but I find myself still wanting to listen to their music and still wanting to call myself a fan, but I'm afraid to as I don't want to condone behaviour like that.

My question is, is art made by bad people still okay to divulge into? Can't listen to Louis CK anymore but I do find myself quoting his older materials and I always preface it with "look I know it was Louis CK, but still true"....

Opinions?

EDIT: Screw it, I'll out the bands, but I'm talking specifically about Brand New and Tool, both Jesse Lacey and Maynard James Keenan have gotten the finger pointed at them hard the past few years. It actually now makes a few of their lyrics specifically Brand new's "What difference does this difference in age make, I know how it ends, Kill me quick", are really hard to listen to now.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 19, 2021)

art is art for me. I'm usually able to divorce the art from the creator. 
I love Caravaggio but he was a shitbag murderer . I love Rodin's sculptures but he preyed on his female protegés. Most late Bauhaus and minimalist architecture has ties to fascism/white supremacy, but I still love that clean aesthetic. I like As I lay Dying even though Tim Lambesis tried to have his wife murdered. 

I draw a line when it comes to art that's deliberately malicious , like that one performance artist who starved a dog to death just for the sake of it.


----------



## Giest (Nov 19, 2021)

Pedos get the bullet. That is all.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

Shitty people make interesting things sometimes. For me what it comes down to is I won't financially support them. If I wanted some music from someone who was piece of shit I'd pirate it. I don't see any reason to carry on with most of them, though, as what they're doing isn't usually unique enough to not be able to get the same enjoyment from something else.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 19, 2021)

Interesting. I guess I will say... it depends. I think there is a difference between enjoying the art of a sadistic painter that died hundreds of years ago to supporting a sadistic painter that is alive and well right now. There is a line between appreciating the artist and actively supporting the artist. Therefore, we often vote with our wallets. At the moment, there are a lot of people that are having that discussion right now about Eric Clapton. He didn't violate any laws, but he has been actively against vaccinations, mandates, etc. His politics and beliefs are causing a lot of debates among fans regarding if they will support him in the future. Again, people vote with their wallets - and they either buy those tickets or they don't. I feel an artist should create and do as they please, but that comes with the cost of altering their patronage.


----------



## sleewell (Nov 19, 2021)

it is very tough, i think i started a thread on this topic a while back regarding CJ from lorna shore. 

you can say that you can separate the person from the music and the music is all that matters but does even just listening to them or going to their shows to see another band provide some level of support for them to keep being a shit head? you know what I mean... does it embolden them or validate them in some way? if 500k people were like hey they are human trash but i'll still stream their music for free well that band still looks good on paper and will probably get bigger shows which means more money even though you haven't personally given them any of your money.


----------



## Tree (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm of the "I'll still listen to, or appreciate the art (whatever that medium is) camp. Unless there is some specific circumstance that is just too deplorable to ignore/separate, which hasn't happened yet for me.

I will go out of my way to ensure that I'm not contributing to them in any way to gain them more publicity or financial gain, but we are splitting hairs at that point as a few others have said already.

I say as long as you don't feel like shit for enjoying it, whatever "it" is it's not the end of the world given you aren't actively supporting them. Either way, the offending party is probably going to continue being a POS in their personal life regardless of what we as the consumers are doing.

People suck, but unfortunately sometimes these people are the very same that make great strides in their respective fields or make some very impactful art.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 19, 2021)

Yeah, it depends on the art and- I don't know the best way to put it- how much of its appreciation includes or requires a 'buy-in' of the artist's persona. With modern music and the tendency towards more confessional songwriting, it's harder to separate the art from the artist when the art is about themselves.

It's not exactly on the same level, but I remember when sad-guy singer/songwriters were the rage, my wife was playing a record of this type and I asked, "All of this guy's songs are breakup songs. Is it possible that he's an asshole?"


----------



## coreysMonster (Nov 19, 2021)

If I couldn't enjoy things Harvey Weinstein touched, I couldn't enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies. I think it's okay to not stop enjoying things when terrible people were part of a group effort, since otherwise it would take away things from innocent and amazing creators just because of one d-bag. However, I simply cannot enjoy anything with Bill Cosby in it anymore, but he's usually the main guy both behind and in front of the camera, so that's a little different than a behind-the-scenes evil money-man (is there a different kind?).

Individual creators are different, and it's complicated. I can't read Ender's Game anymore, knowing what I know about the author, and how he actively holds views I despise and actively politically supports them. I can still read Lovecraft, despite him being a gigantic racist even for his time, because it's interesting to me how that bleeds into his work, and it gives it a different context (also he's dead so he's not benefiting from it anyways).

And then there's comedians.... and boy that's a tricky one. I think comedy kinda requires riding an edge of what is and isn't socially acceptable, and they shouldn't be given too hard a time for stepping over that in a joke that doesn't work every once in a while. Comedy is an art, every artist hits a bad note sometimes. But then there's things like Dave Chappelle's most recent standup things and it's like, that's not a joke that didn't land, there's a message behind this that I really don't like, but I still love watching Dave's old stuff because the message there was really good. Then there's Louis CK who I just find cringe now, and he actually did terrible things, not just made bad jokes.

Bottom line, I think it's really a case-by-case thing, where you personally morally draw the line and how you want to vote, not just with your wallet, but with how you spend your time on this planet.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 19, 2021)

GunpointMetal said:


> Shitty people make interesting things sometimes. For me what it comes down to is I won't financially support them. If I wanted some music from someone who was piece of shit I'd pirate it.



This right here  If we're talking musicians, if the music resonates strongly with me and I really love it I'm gonna listen to it. There are of course certain stipulations, like if the lyrics were full of hate speech and shit then I wouldn't, but I normally can't listen to songs with horrible/corny/amateurish/racist/etc lyrics anyhow. But like let's say Marilyn Manson... he's getting tons of bad press these days due to accusations from women but I'm still gonna listen to his music. And yeah I won't financially support artists that are terrible human beings.


----------



## cardinal (Nov 19, 2021)

I've mentioned this before, but to me art is personal to the individual experiencing it. Whatever the artist intended becomes largely irrelevant as soon as the art is released, and each of us is free to experience and interpret it in our own way. So if there is art that you find personal meaning and enjoyment from, that seems valid. 

The tricky bit I think is trying to avoid supporting people you'd rather not support, and it's hard if you like art by an artist who seems like a dirtbag. 

Not really a good answer for it, other than to keep in mind that no one gets a free pass for making incredible art. People are complex and can do both terrible and beautiful things.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 19, 2021)

cardinal said:


> I've mentioned this before, but to me art is personal to the individual experiencing it.


I like this a lot. So many songs I have that I have a personal connection to parts of the lyrics, then I read the whole song and its NO WHERE NEAR what I thought it was about, but I still take my own meaning from the passages.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

You can't help what you like. 

So maybe to someone the music of Tim Lamwhatever or Lemmy Kilwhoseit is just so fucking mind blowing that it doesn't matter what depraved or horrifying thing they do or are. 

It is what it is. 

But, I think generally, there is room for nuance. 

Like, stuff hits differently for some folks. I have absolutely no idea what it's like being a woman in a male dominated industry trying to make their way, so when Louie Whatshisname used his industry position to commit sexual assault, I know it's terrible, but it doesn't really hit at my core as if I could see myself as closer to his victim. 

I also think there's a separation between fans of the art the person made and a fan of the artist. If some dude just loves listening to Jeff Heineken because he's an awesome guitarist, that's cool. But if someone listens to Jeff because they're into the whole Nazi thing, well...they might just be a goober.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 19, 2021)

Tough call.

I don't ostracize people for their personal taste in art, but I reserve the right to ostracize a shitty person regardless of their talent level.

Something like an album or even moreso a film, there are a lot of people who put their effort and made their own sacrifices to make it happen. So, is it socially responsible to punish an entire film cast and crew for working on a project that happened to have a producer who was a piece of human trash? I don't think that seems right.


----------



## Kyle Jordan (Nov 19, 2021)

My line is fairly simple. I do my best to limit my interactions, financial exchanges, and general support/appreciation with individuals mainly, but groups and companies that have openly expressed opposition towards or acted with malice at what I consider my core ideals. 

It's incredibly case by case based though. Majority of the time, it just doesn't really matter too much due to fleeting interaction.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Nov 19, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> .... people vote with their wallets...... I feel an artist should create and do as they please, but that comes with the cost of altering their patronage.



Rightly or wrongly it really all comes down to this. Its not an ideal world. And everyones version of "bad" is very different. Can time really erradicate or blur the lines between the art and the artist? Wagner for example, for millions who enjoy his music and go to his operas they can seperate it and they vote with their wallet and so he is still reg performed. Another example is R Kelly, the sh1t he got away with while people where still voting with their money and fact he was allowed to because he was making others so much money, but then people turned on him and no longer gave their support through their wallets and his world finally crashed in on him, but years he got away with it but enough people didnt care. Still waiting for that to happen to Chris Brown, but while people support him with their wallets he will remain popular and unpunished/unrepentant.
There are times when "business" makes the discision for the consumer, with the likes of The Lost Prophets or Gary Glitter. But they are so few and far between.

Its just down to each individual to decide for themselves


----------



## Crungy (Nov 19, 2021)

Lost Prophets is the first band I thought of. I fucking loved that band and now I can't bring myself to listen to it. I feel bad for the rest of the band that they have to have that tied to them when it was the most successful thing they've done. I wish they'd regroup with a different singer!


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 19, 2021)

Crungy said:


> Lost Prophets is the first band I thought of. I fucking loved that band and now I can't bring myself to listen to it. I feel bad for the rest of the band that they have to have that tied to them when it was the most successful thing they've done. I wish they'd regroup with a different singer!


That band will never get a listen from me, i found the act so deplorable that its just...no. Will never.


----------



## Crungy (Nov 19, 2021)

It's fucking horrifying! I couldn't believe it when I found out. Deleted songs I had and threw out any cds I had.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

you talking about attila brother? 

It's ridiculous to condemn the work of others based off their personality. Alexi Laiho was an enormous alcoholic douchebag who essentially kicked out Roope for seemingly no reason. Doesn't make me question his own talent though. Just maybe not the most amazing band mate.


----------



## Crungy (Nov 19, 2021)

I was not aware about Jesse and Maynard, though I don't think I've ever listened to BN and I got over Tool a long time ago. That lyric you mentioned is fucked up... Sounds like another candidate for a dirt nap.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 19, 2021)

evade said:


> It's ridiculous to condemn the work of others based off their personality



Google Ian Watkins and see if you are still willing to drop some money on his music.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Google Ian Watkins and see if you are still willing to drop some money on his music.



You're probably right in assuming I wouldn't pay money for his work, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't pirate his content. (Doesn't mean I would either.)

The point I'm trying to make is that you can enjoy someone's work without necessarily supporting it or the person who made it.



> On 19 December 2012, Watkins was charged at Cardiff magistrates court with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a one-year-old girl and possession and/or distribution of indecent images of children and "extreme animal pornography". He was remanded in custody, as were his two female co-accused. His barrister said Watkins would deny the accusations.[12][13][14] On 31 December, he appeared at Cardiff Crown Court via video link from HM Prison Parc in Bridgend, and was remanded in custody until 11 March 2013.[15] The case was adjourned until May, with the trial date set for 15 July.[16] At a hearing on 3 June, he denied the charges via a video link.[17]
> 
> On 6 June, it was announced that the trial would start on 25 November and was expected to last a month. A previous application for the court venue to be moved outside Wales was denied.[18] On 26 November, Watkins pleaded guilty to attempted rape and sexual assault of a child under 13, but not guilty to rape. This was accepted by the prosecution. He further pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving children; six counts of taking, making, or possessing indecent images of children; and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a sex act on an animal.[4] His victims included a baby boy,[19][20] and he sent a text message to the mother of one victim that said, "If you belong to me, so does your baby."[4] The South Wales Police investigation into Watkins, codenamed "Operation Globe", required the co-operation of GCHQ to decrypt a hidden drive on his laptop, which was found to contain video evidence of his abuses.[19] On 27 November, the day after his guilty plea had been accepted by the prosecution, Watkins referred to his sex offences as "mega lolz" in a recorded phone call to a female fan made from HM Prison Parc.[21]
> 
> ...



Yeah this guy is definitely a piece of shit.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 19, 2021)

evade said:


> you talking about attila brother?
> 
> It's ridiculous to condemn the work of others based off their personality. Alexi Laiho was an enormous alcoholic douchebag who essentially kicked out Roope for seemingly no reason. Doesn't make me question his own talent though. Just maybe not the most amazing band mate.


I dont care about personality, or kicking people out of bands, I'm talking about like, crossing lines like grooming underage females or raping passed out people...etc.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 19, 2021)

evade said:


> It's ridiculous to condemn the work of others based off their personality.


Being an unlikable asshole =/= trying to fuck kids, or grooming teenagers, or hiring a hitman to kill the mother of your kids.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 19, 2021)

Great topic, lots of great replies so far that I pretty much agree with. It's highly personal, specific, and situational. For me, it's a calculation of what consuming their art means to them/in the context of their behavior, as well as what consuming it _publicly _says to others. In other words, wearing a TOOL shirt with no disclaimer could potentially send the message "I don't know about/don't care about/don't think it's important to hold this person accountable for their actions." 

I'm not saying that's the _only _message it sends, but it's definitely _a_ message it can send. I'm also not saying you're necessarily responsible for disclaiming every t-shirt you wear or every person's interpretations of your every action, but to me if something is likely to require that level of explanation in order for you not to look like an ass it's probably just a bad call. I have a fucking fanboy tattoo on my forearm so this is direct experiential knowledge I am speaking from.

Very much relate to @coreysMonster talking about HPL, I also enjoy his writing despite his awful beliefs and have similarly found that there is value in reading his work in specific light of those beliefs. Similarly, learning that about TOOL didn't change all the years I spent listening to and growing up to those albums, those meanings still exist. They just also exist in a more complex context with this other stuff. 

More broadly, for me it's all about context. It "can" be okay to consume art made by bad people, but it requires that the actions or behaviors of the artist be a part of the context in which the art is viewed. Looking at TOOL lyrics in hindsight, especially older ones, it's incredibly obvious he had/s a fascination with psychological violence. Similarly with Brand New lyrics. At the very least, I shouldn't have been a tiny bit surprised. I believe that makes me what Gen Z kids call a "stan." I was stanning them? Am I doing this right?

TL;DR consume art with a critical eye/ear/brain for context and burn your fucking idols


----------



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> I dont care about personality, or kicking people out of bands, I'm talking about like, crossing lines like grooming underage females or raping passed out people...etc.





GunpointMetal said:


> Being an unlikable asshole =/= trying to fuck kids, or grooming teenagers, or hiring a hitman to kill the mother of your kids.



Yeah - I wasn't aware the extent of his crimes, however, this being said... 

When you like someone's music or art, you like their product. You don't necessarily have to like or support the person their creation. It happens that most of the time people do like and support the person, but I'm listening to a song of theirs right now on YT and you could argue they're getting revenue from views or whatever (i'm using adblock anyways...?) 

 

The music's good. The person is bad. 

I'm not going to sit here and say the music's bad because the person is a piece of shit.


----------



## Crungy (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm surprised Ian Watkins didn't get a life sentence and I did not know about the animal stuff too. Fucking hell.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 19, 2021)

Ian is from the same part of Wales my grandfather grew up in, ew.


----------



## /wrists (Nov 19, 2021)

there are tons of celebrities like this, kevin spacey was one of them. 

talented actor, loved his movies, then he had to be revealed that he was touching underage boys. it's a feels bad man.


----------



## Giest (Nov 19, 2021)

The Clapton thing kinda makes me laugh. It's like when celebrities give their opinion on literally anything that's not a charity benefit concert to raise awareness of an actual clear cut problem, I just do not care. They are all performance entertainment with crippling narcissism more often than not, and certainly not sociopolitical luminaries. Get back to dancing for dollars and let the grown ups have an open discussion without steering the opinion of the great unwashed for Pete's sake.


----------



## KailM (Nov 19, 2021)

I’m not perfect, so I’m able to listen to bands that I don’t necessarily agree with and/or have done some questionable things — even murder. I don’t condone that, of course, but I’m able to separate the art from the artist.

Where I draw the line is rape/sexual assault/pedophilia. Just can’t with that stuff.


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 19, 2021)

This was my first thought when I saw the thread...




Other than really obvious stuff, I don't give enough about celebrities to know which ones are your average shitbag famous person and which ones did something really bad.


----------



## Giest (Nov 19, 2021)

People are all good, and bad, and nothing. I think people can change and learn to be honorable even after doing dishonorable things or being effectively victims of circumstance- however not rapists and pedos. I have no remorse for those demented people and hope all the misfortune in the world sends them straight to hades. I won't support their career or popularize them but that doesn't mean I'm going to burn my already owned books, albums, or movies because someone like that had something to do with it. I think doing so would be kind of ignorant. I mean would you throw out a mathematician's groundbreaking equations because he's ultimate scum? Now, if they are obliquely alluding to it or sliding it under the door so to speak, yea I'll toss it out because it is disgusting to me. I find it completely repulsive to seek pity or a discreet meeting of the minds for such things, and perhaps experiencing it under that light will change my reception of it even when such is not actually the case.

I see it almost as a sins of the father (so on and so forth), but on the other side of misappropriated adages the apple doesn't often fall far from the tree. I don't think it makes you a bad person to still appreciate their art though, most normal folks are so far removed from that mindset it cannot possibly make a difference at all in reality. I'm also not one to completely condemn people based on anything less than proof, which sadly can be a significant hurdle to getting the truth established and recognized. Good and bad can get blurry sometimes, why erase the little good with the immense evil if it's still able to have a positive or enriching impact otherwise- seems too much like an equation of absolutes to me which art and morality almost never is.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 19, 2021)

If it was only ok to enjoy music made by saints, there would be no music fit to enjoy. You can draw the line wherever you want, but in my view, on some level, pretty much everyone is "bad" in some way.


----------



## mastapimp (Nov 19, 2021)

Doesn't bother me at all. I can still listen to Marilyn Manson on occasion. My wife still likes R. Kelly's music. Every sporting event I went to in the 80s and 90s played that Gary Glitter song. I don't have to support these guys, but I'm not gonna change the station if their music comes on. BTW, I still have my lost prophets cds.


----------



## TheBlackBard (Nov 20, 2021)

Not only do I continue to listen to the artist, I also don't pirate it. Sorry, not sorry. If I like something I'm paying for it, and thought the small crime of piracy doesn't compare to truly heinous crimes, at the end of the day, I pay for my consumption. As far as HP Lovecraft goes, no one really gave a fuck about him in the mainstream till they wanted to where tentacle imagery came from. What irks me about that is they think Lovecraft can only be represented in that way, or similar to Cthulhu. Same with Rowling. She might be a cunt, but she's a cunt that wrote some pretty damn good books, and I don't buy used books, so...

Should I stop giving money to the plumber that voted Trump? Should I stop eating produce or buying local even though they mostly likely vote in assholes that don't share my political interests to the point of voting in old age bigoted motherfuckers that believe you can pray away the gay? I can learn how to do my own plumbing and I can grow or hunt my own food. I'm not going to though. Your money is going down the pipeline somehow, somewhere, some way to someone you don't agree with on a moral level. Just because it didn't make it there with the first person you handed your money off to for a service or entertainment doesn't mean someone else worse won't get it.

*“It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds”*


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 20, 2021)

mastapimp said:


> Doesn't bother me at all. I can still listen to Marilyn Manson on occasion. My wife still likes R. Kelly's music. *Every sporting event I went to in the 80s and 90s played that Gary Glitter song.* I don't have to support these guys, but I'm not gonna change the station if their music comes on. BTW, I still have my lost prophets cds.



I saw a thing where people were making a big deal about that song being in the Joker movie. OH EM GEE THEY"RE SUPPORTING A PEDO, I'm just sick of hearing it because like you said. I hated it it before I knew it was by Gary Glitter, and I didn't hate it any more or less after finding out it was by him.


----------



## mmr007 (Nov 20, 2021)

There is someone on this forum...the name escapes me but hint hint...it is in my sig who said people are not 1's and 0's. They fall on a spectrum and there is no one size fits all metric you can apply. I think I said this before that one of my daughters (who is gay) didn't want to listen to Azealia Banks anymore (This was quite a while ago) because of her attitude toward LGBT and I supported her and stopped listening also. Then one day my daughter said "fuck it. I like her music. You and I can go back to listening to her."


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Nov 20, 2021)

I read Ozzy Ozbourne’s book recently and he was sadistic to animals. He admits to torturing them and doing all sorts of things. As much as I can separate most artists from their music I’m conflicted hearing crazy train and knowing the guy is a monster. He’s remorseful about it in his book and blames the drink + drugs for most of it.


----------



## ZeroS1gnol (Nov 20, 2021)

I'm always in two minds about this. Enjoying the work of a terrible person does not make you a terrible person, if the work itself has no malicious value or intent. Also depending on what you enjoy about it. On the other hand, consuming that work also often involves paying for it and I am not really up for financially assisting terrible people. That said, in practice, terrible acts of an artist can really turn me off from their work, which I previously enjoyed.


----------



## Adieu (Nov 20, 2021)

TheBlackBard said:


> Not only do I continue to listen to the artist, I also don't pirate it. Sorry, not sorry. If I like something I'm paying for it, and thought the small crime of piracy doesn't compare to truly heinous crimes, at the end of the day, I pay for my consumption. As far as HP Lovecraft goes, no one really gave a fuck about him in the mainstream till they wanted to where tentacle imagery came from. What irks me about that is they think Lovecraft can only be represented in that way, or similar to Cthulhu. Same with Rowling. She might be a cunt, but she's a cunt that wrote some pretty damn good books, and I don't buy used books, so...
> 
> Should I stop giving money to the plumber that voted Trump? Should I stop eating produce or buying local even though they mostly likely vote in assholes that don't share my political interests to the point of voting in old age bigoted motherfuckers that believe you can pray away the gay? I can learn how to do my own plumbing and I can grow or hunt my own food. I'm not going to though. Your money is going down the pipeline somehow, somewhere, some way to someone you don't agree with on a moral level. Just because it didn't make it there with the first person you handed your money off to for a service or entertainment doesn't mean someone else worse won't get it.
> 
> *“It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds”*




Rowling? You mean the whole discussion of the discussion of menstruation thing?

In the same thread as serial baby rapists?


----------



## USMarine75 (Nov 20, 2021)

The more I like the art the more I’m willing to let my moral compass drift.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

Going back to the original context here - Rock stars and underage groupies - It's super important to remember that times and context have changed radically.

I've had people get weirdly angry at me for saying that I don't care if anyone sleeps with 16 year olds. 16 is the age of consent here. It's all legal, so why would I care? But people have been really aggressive at me for drawing the line there. They have never been able to explain why exactly 18 or older is the correct standard, but apparently that's what they believe and they are willing to physically threaten me for not being equally mad. Such are the times we live in.

But it wasn't that long ago that age of consent was much less of a big deal. For any Brits in the house; there is an episode of the New Statesman recorded in 1989 where the central plot point is Rik Mayall's character being involved in sordid sexual acts with a troupe of Girl Guides (aged 13 or 14). Now, the character is supposed to be a grotesque caricature, but this is played off completely for laughs. All of the Girl Guides are clearly very taken with Alan, and all seem to have been quite happy to participate. They all refuse to testify against him, and Alan lies his way out of it. The implication being that while charges were brought, that really this was a fuss about nothing. This really wasn't that long ago.

I'm glad that today we have a less gung ho attitude to shagging girl guides. But we have also arrived at a weirdly black and white position with it, where we start saying that your man from Lost Prophets, who is a legit monster, is morally the same as being cavalier about checking a willing partner's date of birth. I'm not saying it's a trivial nothing to sleep with someone underage, but I am saying that it is qualitatively different. The Epsteins and Weinsteins of the world are not the same as the Lemmys.

Being an idiot isn't the same as being a rapist.

We are (mostly) red blooded males here. We all know that young women are sexy, doubly so when they enthusiastically want to sleep with you and come with their own school uniform. I fully endorse age of consent laws, and them being enforced with truncheons. We do need to draw a line somewhere. But for all that, young women are sexy. Rock stars (and men generally) should know better and absolutely should not take the risk of ending up in prison over some jailbait in a short skirt. But that is as strong as my feelings get on the matter.

And, frankly, I often feel like people who react with such militancy to cavalier idiocy are people who are just protesting too much. I get the strong waft that they are intensely but shamefully attracted to these schoolgirls.

We are all understandably disgusted at the thought of your man from Lost Prophets. But fuck me... This is not the same as Tommy Lee sleeping with some 17 year old in California who was thus under the local age of consent.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

USMarine75 said:


> The more I like the art the more I’m willing to let my moral compass drift.



Yeah, I agree with this. 

We all kinda have our own personal scale of what we care about, but as far as I'm concerned Dio would have to be involved in ethnic cleansing for me to fall out of love with his work.


----------



## NoodleFace (Nov 20, 2021)

Everybody is a piece of shit to varying degrees. Just depends how much shit you can eat.

My classic example is As I Lay Dying. They make/made good music, but I just can't really respect Tim or support the band.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)




----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

NoodleFace said:


> Everybody is a piece of shit to varying degrees. Just depends how much shit you can eat



Correct. And this is not even a new thing. Throughout human history, actors, artists and musicians have been well known to be degenerates and were given social standing equivalent to prostitutes.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> Correct. And this is not even a new thing. Throughout human history, actors, artists and musicians have been well known to be degenerates and were given social standing equivalent to prostitutes.


So...lets change that? I don't like the amount of "oh but thats the way its been forever, gotta get over it" mentality I keep hearing. I understand what you all are saying but...cmon. We woke up this century, lets not go back to sleep....


----------



## Loomer (Nov 20, 2021)

Demiurge said:


> It's not exactly on the same level, but I remember when sad-guy singer/songwriters were the rage, my wife was playing a record of this type and I asked, "All of this guy's songs are breakup songs. Is it possible that he's an asshole?"



I have to applaud your wife on this one. Pretty sure Ryan Adams felt a stinging pain in his side when these words were uttered.


----------



## NoodleFace (Nov 20, 2021)

Demiurge said:


> Yeah, it depends on the art and- I don't know the best way to put it- how much of its appreciation includes or requires a 'buy-in' of the artist's persona. With modern music and the tendency towards more confessional songwriting, it's harder to separate the art from the artist when the art is about themselves.
> 
> It's not exactly on the same level, but I remember when sad-guy singer/songwriters were the rage, my wife was playing a record of this type and I asked, "All of this guy's songs are breakup songs. Is it possible that he's an asshole?"


Makes me think about someone like Adele. All of her songs are about terrible men. Maybe she's the baddie


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> So...lets change that? I don't like the amount of "oh but thats the way its been forever, gotta get over it" mentality I keep hearing. I understand what you all are saying but...cmon. We woke up this century, lets not go back to sleep....



No, you cant change that.

Art is a romantic undertaking. And if you are romantically inclined, you inherently believe that emotionality is of higher value than reason.

To be an artist you have to be open to experience and willing to break rules to pursue emotional outcomes. Obviously artists are predisposed to being perverts.

But not just perverts of course.

Which is the underlying hypocrisy of all of this.

We are all incredibly permissive of fucking shocking amounts of drug use and drinking and really appalling behaviour... For all the "waking up" you are happy to turn a blind eye to things that don't personally bother you.

Why is being a strung out junkie with a taste for orgies and prostitutes acceptable? Answer: Because we all know that artists are weird people and we make allowances.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

....we can all be artists and weird without overstepping peoples boundaries. That's not art, and does not make art. 

When you are approaching "consensual" or "not consensual", "oh he's an artist" isn't acceptable, I'm sorry, its just not. You can create good art without being a shitbag, and we need to STOP making those allowances. 

You can break rules without stepping on someone.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> ....we can all be artists and weird without overstepping peoples boundaries. That's not art, and does not make art.
> 
> When you are approaching "consensual" or "not consensual", "oh he's an artist" isn't acceptable, I'm sorry, its just not. You can create good art without being a shitbag, and we need to STOP making those allowances.
> 
> You can break rules without stepping on someone.



Overstepping peoples boundaries is a HUGELY different standard though.

This is why I say there is so much shocking hypocrisy around what we accept and what we don't.

When it comes to ladyboy orgies and shooting heroin them most of us (me included) say "Oh well, it's all consensual so it doesn't really matter if its legal or not".

When it comes to underage groupies many people get weirdly officious and start saying that the legal age of consent is completely concrete, while conveniently forgetting that someone who is 17 and who could freely consent here in England is a poor abused child who didn't know what they were doing in California. 

If we're in the business of following the law, we really need to care a lot about the call girls and dumpsters full of cocaine. Because if we take the legal standard, they are still illegal even if we think they shouldn't be.

If we take the "do not overstep peoples boundaries" standard then we also have to implicitly accept that capability to consent is on a case by case basis, not on the basis of age. Serious people (well, French people anyway) have seriously argued to abolish the age of consent on that basis. 

We can either be officious legal scholars, or we can be libertarians, but we cant be both at the same time.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> No, you cant change that.
> 
> Art is a romantic undertaking. And if you are romantically inclined, you inherently believe that emotionality is of higher value than reason.
> 
> ...


There's a huge difference between liking kinky shit and drugs/alcohol, versus being a legit pedophile or a murdering shitbag though.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> Overstepping peoples boundaries is a HUGELY different standard though.
> 
> This is why I say there is so much shocking hypocrisy around what we accept and what we don't.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry man, but you might have a point or two, but its really feeling like you're kinda defending pedophilia in a way and frankly not really into continuing the conversation. I believe you can be a "tortured artist" without blurring the "i'm a shitbag" line. I'm in the camp that believes if you have "teen" in your name, including eighteen and nineteen, you're still a kid with barely any consent, and I'll never ever ever turn my eye away from someone of any age getting groomed because "thats what artists do".


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

KnightBrolaire said:


> There's a huge difference between liking kinky shit and drugs/alcohol, versus being a legit pedophile or a murdering shitbag though.



Yes, obviously.

But there is a huge smear of grey between those two points.

Lets stick with the underage groupies.

Where do you fall on the scumbag scale if you come from somewhere where the age of consent is 18, then sleep with a 17 year old fan while on tour in somewhere that the age of consent is 16?

Where do you fall on the scumbag scale if meet someone in a bar (ie, an 18+ venue), sleep with them, then later learn that they are younger than you thought?

Where do you fall on the scumbag scale if you meet someone in a bar and deliberately decide not to ask their age, so there is some plausible deniability?

In all three cases; if the groupie was clearly very keen to sleep with you; have you done anything wrong? Why? Or why not?


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> I'm sorry man, but you might have a point or two, but its really feeling like you're kinda defending pedophilia in a way and frankly not really into continuing the conversation. I believe you can be a "tortured artist" without blurring the "i'm a shitbag" line. I'm in the camp that believes if you have "teen" in your name, including eighteen and nineteen, you're still a kid with barely any consent, and I'll never ever ever turn my eye away from someone of any age getting groomed because "thats what artists do".



And that's the fucking problem with this debate dude.

I am NOT defending paedophilia. I'm actually arguing the opposite; that we should judge people for legal but skeezy bullshit too.

However I am saying that age of consent is a really complex issue, and not one that you can just stick your nose up and say "Oh the law says x" because where I live the law says Y. 

In fact, running by your logic you are calling me a paedophile, even though I have never slept with someone under the age of consent in the UK. 

And dude... YOU were the one who said the standard should be "don't overstep peoples boundaries" which is a pretty fucking weak standard. And you then also say that the boundaries of age are set in stone and anyone who points out that you haven't thought this through defending fucking pedohilia.

Think your fucking ideas through.

Be consistent on shit.

Or don't fucking bother, and call people who disagree with you pedos, because that will achieve something.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

Oh and... Go read my first post in this thread...

You are doing EXACTLY what I said people always do.

Getting weirdly aggressive about a standard that you cant actually justify but definitely believe very strongly in.

My whole point has been "follow the law you degenerate fucks" and yet you think I'm the one defending illegal behavior.


----------



## budda (Nov 20, 2021)

No mention of pete townsend and jimmy page yet? Charlie Chaplin too iirc. There's a big list and a big fb post/twitter thread on a lot of people.

Would be cool if free passes stopped .


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

I actually wasnt aggressive at all, if anything you were much more aggressive than I, if anything I told you I wasnt interested in continuing the conversation because frankly made me feel uncomfortable.

I'm not worried about what the law says, its like the judge who was asked to define what pornography is, and their response was something along the lines of "I don't know the definition, but you know it when you see it."

Its not about "16 in this country 18 in that country" because frankly I find it fucking gross to see 40 year old celebrities with their 18 year old girlfriends, fucking gross. If you have to even question what age they are, its fucking gross.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> I actually wasnt aggressive at all, if anything you were much more aggressive than I, if anything I told you I wasnt interested in continuing the conversation because frankly made me feel uncomfortable.



You told me I was defending pedophiles, which I explicitly wasn't.

And then you walked off.



CanserDYI said:


> I'm not worried about what the law says, its like the judge who was asked to define what pornography is, and their response was something along the lines of "I don't know the definition, but you know it when you see it."
> 
> Its not about "16 in this country 18 in that country" because frankly I find it fucking gross to see 40 year old celebrities with their 18 year old girlfriends, fucking gross. If you have to even question what age they are, its fucking gross.



If you're not worried about what the law says, you have no right to judge anyone for the age of their partner. Not just at 17, at ANY age. YOU are actually defending paedophilia.

And yet you have so much disgust. Why? If you only care about consent, why is it gross?

Is it just because of the 40 year old guy? Why? What does that change? The partner doesn't change the consent. If they are genuinely into it, what right do you have to say sleeping with some old rich dude is harming them?

Again, you are arguing for a standard that you cant articulate.

You are feeling uncomfortable because you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Again, like I said the first time, my standard is FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW. But you still said I was defending paedophiles because, exactly as I said previously, I am not as disgusted as you about the standard that you cant even put words to.


----------



## budda (Nov 20, 2021)

Scientists have proved the brain doesnt fully mature til you're 25, but the law is still 16 in some places. Now what?

Edit: following the law doesnt mean you're making the right decision. We've seen that play out, historically...


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

budda said:


> Scientists have proved the brain doesnt fully mature til you're 25, but the law is still 16 in some places. Now what?



I strongly support raising the age of majority to 25 for everything.

Giving literal children credit cards, cars and the vote is not positive for society.


----------



## budda (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> I strongly support raising the age of majority to 25 for everything.
> 
> Giving literal children credit cards, cars and the vote is not positive for society.



Ok but thats not the current law. So now what?


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

Nah this is making me feel uncomfortable because i have a dude asking me to define what pedophilia is in exact definite terms. I can't. You got me. But I can sure use my best judgement and I know when it feels wrong. If they were in diapers at ANY time that you can remember, you're probably too old for them.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

budda said:


> Ok but thats not the current law. So now what?



So what? I don't fuck teenagers whether its legal or not. For other people, they can do whatever they like within the law and I wont care.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> So what? I don't fuck teenagers whether its legal or not. For other people, they can do whatever they like within the law and I wont care.


Dude at one time it was okay to beat up a black dude that whistled at "your woman", and that was legal at the time. Fuck the law, this is about morals, not religious morals, just fucking good person morals. You should probably be sticking to your age group or a bit older when sleeping around, and if you ever have to question their age? Run. its that simple.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> Nah this is making me feel uncomfortable because i have a dude asking me to define what pedophilia is in exact definite terms. I can't. You got me. But I can sure use my best judgement and I know when it feels wrong. If they were in diapers at ANY time that you can remember, you're probably too old for them.



"Its wrong if I feel its wrong for reasons I cant say" is a shit awful standard.

I agree that age gaps are weird, but weird isn't the same as morally wrong especially when both parties are clearly consenting. That knee jerk of disgust is throwing off your whole moral compass.

And, frankly, where do you get the balls to say I am defending paedophilia when you literally cant say what you mean by paedophilia?


----------



## AwakenTheSkies (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> I strongly support raising the age of majority to 25 for everything.



Wait so no drinking, no smoking, no driving and no partying until 25?! Whatttt


----------



## budda (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> So what? I don't fuck teenagers whether its legal or not. For other people, they can do whatever they like within the law and I wont care.



The appalling part is that you wont care. And that's all we need to know.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> Dude at one time it was okay to beat up a black dude that whistled at "your woman", and that was legal at the time. Fuck the law, this is about morals, not religious morals, just fucking good person morals. You should probably be sticking to your age group or a bit older when sleeping around, and if you ever have to question their age? Run. its that simple.



Speak for your own backwards fucking republic mate. Don't assume that the rest of us have the same bullshit history y'all do.

And in any case, it WASN'T legal to randomly attack black folks. The law typically wasn't enforced, but that's not the same as legal.

And in any case, the moral case is always deeply personal. But you still cant articulate the moral point here. Is it actual age? Or age gap? Or consent? Or what? What is the factor that you actually care about?


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> "Its wrong if I feel its wrong for reasons I cant say" is a shit awful standard.
> 
> I agree that age gaps are weird, but weird isn't the same as morally wrong especially when both parties are clearly consenting. That knee jerk of disgust is throwing off your whole moral compass.
> 
> And, frankly, where do you get the balls to say I am defending paedophilia when you literally cant say what you mean by paedophilia?


Dude when you start throwing around words asking people to define pedophilia for you, it feels like you're defending it. It does. I cant tell you the exact ages and frankly its not about that. The age gaps are a huge part of it, as you'll have so much more knowledge and ability to make decisions that the other partner THINKS they have the ability to do, but most likely dont, and often regret it later in life. 

When MGK was confronted about that shit he said about having sex with a 16 year old Kendall Jenner or whoever, he came at the interviewee with like a hundred guys that had similar aged girlfriends, as if he had google searched that shit 5 minutes before hand so he could defend himself, knowing it was looked at as innappropriate. Thats what it feels like.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

budda said:


> The appalling part is that you wont care. And that's all we need to know.



So it is appalling that I am happy to let my fellow citizens live their own lives within the bounds of the law?

What should I do instead? Send around the Mutaween?


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

The factor I care about is the ability to make the decision without other forces impeding on that decision, ie. social status, age, wealth, sobriety, etc.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> Dude when you start throwing around words asking people to define pedophilia for you, it feels like you're defending it. It does. I cant tell you the exact ages and frankly its not about that. The age gaps are a huge part of it, as you'll have so much more knowledge and ability to make decisions that the other partner THINKS they have the ability to do, but most likely dont, and often regret it later in life.
> 
> When MGK was confronted about that shit he said about having sex with a 16 year old Kendall Jenner or whoever, he came at the interviewee with like a hundred guys that had similar aged girlfriends, as if he had google searched that shit 5 minutes before hand so he could defend himself, knowing it was looked at as innappropriate. Thats what it feels like.



But I still wasn't defending shit. And the fact you "feel like" I was, when the words I used said the opposite, but then added some nuance, says plenty about your opinions here.

You keep saying "feels like" but what you feel isn't the same as what is moral, or what is right.


----------



## CanserDYI (Nov 20, 2021)

honestly, it just feels like the pedo version of "i'm not racist, but"

"I'm not a pedo, but wheres the line?" if you don't know the line by seeing it, you might be a pedo man. (Not you personally). Its not drawn in stone, but its not subtle either.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 20, 2021)

The issue is always consent. As with literally everything, there will be a gray area where good faith opinions differ about how much youth/power differential/intoxication is sufficient to constitute inability to consent, but all too often this discussion goes the way of yelling past each other rather than actually attempting to delineate where that gray area even is.

It's also a different question from the one presented in the OP, which has to do with how to regard the art of "bad people", however construed.


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> The factor I care about is the ability to make the decision without other forces impeding on that decision, ie. social status, age, wealth, sobriety, etc.



Oh Jesus...

So a 14 year old can consent, but not if she's from a family who don't own land? What are you talking about?

I will grant you that sobriety is important - But that's nothing to do with paedophilia. And the wealth and social status aspects are laughable beyond belief. Are people going to compare their bank statements and/or family tree? Don't be silly.

This is why I stand by "just follow the law" as the only meaningful standard. Because while I might tut to see some wealthy 30 something chatting up 19 year olds, that's distasteful but not immoral.


----------



## profwoot (Nov 20, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> You keep saying "feels like" but what you feel isn't the same as what is moral, or what is right.



I'd be interested to hear you expound on this. Surely you don't mean that morality is objective?


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

profwoot said:


> The issue is always consent. As with literally everything, there will be a gray area where good faith opinions differ about how much youth/power differential/intoxication is sufficient to constitute inability to consent, but all too often this discussion goes the way of yelling past each other rather than actually attempting to delineate where that gray area even is.
> 
> It's also a different question from the one presented in the OP, which has to do with how to regard the art of "bad people", however construed.



I think it is still relevant though.

Like I said - and seriously did no-one read the first fucking post I put up here - the "bad people" we are talking about mostly arent rapists or paedophiles. They are in the grey zone.


----------



## akinari (Nov 20, 2021)

Lorcan Ward said:


> I read Ozzy Ozbourne’s book recently and he was sadistic to animals. He admits to torturing them and doing all sorts of things.



If you think that's bad, wait 'til you hear what he did to one of his old bassists, Jake E Lee and George Lynch


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 20, 2021)

profwoot said:


> I'd be interested to hear you expound on this. Surely you don't mean that morality is objective?



No, I don't mean that morality is objective. But morality is often at odds with our kneejerk emotional responses too. Morality is always subjective, but it should also be considered and have some sense of internal consistency. 

I find the idea of abortions to be alarmingly repulsive, but on reflection I think its the least worst outcome and that my disgust shouldn't interfere with someone else's rights. I am instinctively pro-life, but I believe pro-choice is the morally correct position.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 20, 2021)

I can't separate the two. If I find out something that makes me angry about someone, I can't not think about that when I see something to do with them. It carries over into things beyond art, too. Like, I can't stand Venus and Serena Williams, because they totally used and threw aside the guy who trained them (for free, and gave their dad a job) to be pros, and defaulted on their commitment to pay him once they made it big. Ever since I learned that, I can't watch them play, and just get too pissed off. 

But, it depends on what they did. Like this Brass Against incident? I don't think that's a big deal at all, so I am totally fine with them. So, for me, if it's something that bothers me, I absolutely cannot separate the artist (or person) from the art (or sport, etc). I know some people have a problem with this, and call it "canceling" the person. But for me, I just want to be happy, and if someone makes me unhappy, I will do what I can to not think about them.


----------



## død (Nov 20, 2021)

Jesus christ this discussion got boring these last couple of pages. 

I have zero issue with completely disregarding bands or artists I find problematic. I did it to Young and In The Way when they were called out for being rapey pieces of shit, and I also avoid the myriad of racist BM bands we have over here like the Plague. Cast them into the Sun.


----------



## Ralyks (Nov 20, 2021)

Also, can I throw Chris Benoit into this thread?


----------



## aesthyrian (Nov 21, 2021)

Chris Benoit is still a bizarre one as by all accounts he was a very calm and collective individual outside of the ring, who deeply loved his family... until he snapped and killed them all in their home. Plus. the whole CTE issue, which isn't really a concern for musicians.


----------



## TheBlackBard (Nov 21, 2021)

aesthyrian said:


> Chris Benoit is still a bizarre one as by all accounts he was a very calm and collective individual outside of the ring, who deeply loved his family... until he snapped and killed them all in their home. Plus. the whole CTE issue, which isn't really a concern for musicians.



(Ivan Moody has entered the chat)


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

TheBlackBard said:


> (Ivan Moody has entered the chat)


 I don't believe he possesses the required components to suffer from CTE.


----------



## TheBlackBard (Nov 22, 2021)

GunpointMetal said:


> I don't believe he possesses the required components to suffer from CTE.




Pretty sure he was born with it to think the shit he passes off as music is any good.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

TheBlackBard said:


> Pretty sure he was born with it to think the shit he passes off as music is any good.



That's the FAS, you can see it in the eyes.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 22, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> Speak for your own backwards fucking republic mate. Don't assume that the rest of us have the same bullshit history y'all do.



This is pretty rich coming from someone in the UK


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 22, 2021)

wannabguitarist said:


> This is pretty rich coming from someone in the UK



You do know that when escaped slaves fled north, they weren't fleeing to New York, right? They were fleeing to Canada because Britain would not send them back to their masters. There hasn't been a slave in Britain since 1066.

Oh and Britain literally used it's imperial power to end the transatlantic slave trade, by forcing Spain, France and Portugal to cease transporting slaves to the Americas. Yeah, y'all kept it legal for another 50 years anyway, even as Britain was the sole anti-slavery world power to have ever existed.

Just out of curiosity, how many European tyrants has the US fought by the way? Because Britain fought every single would be dictator in Europe for 6 centuries. French ones, Spanish ones, Austrian ones, Russian ones; whoever showed up really. We even fought the pope, my dude. Opposing totalitarian in any form for the whole of modern history.

But y'know, Britain is evil because we invented liberalism, and was by far the most progressive empire in world history.

And, frankly, it's a bit fucking rich for septic tanks who assume that the whole world shares their extremely short and desperately genocidal history to start saying that British history is something uniquely awful.


----------



## AwakenTheSkies (Nov 22, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 100331
> 
> 
> Also, can I throw Chris Benoit into this thread?





aesthyrian said:


> Chris Benoit is still a bizarre one as by all accounts he was a very calm and collective individual outside of the ring, who deeply loved his family... until he snapped and killed them all in their home. Plus. the whole CTE issue, which isn't really a concern for musicians.



Yeah, the case of Chris Benoit is truly a mystery. He was very well regarded by everyone from what I've heard. I listened to some podcasts with Chris Jericho (who was his friend) and maybe Chris' son? Who was getting into wrestling as well. This was like 2 years ago. From what they said, his brain had really deteriorated. There was medication involved, some domestic disputes. The death of Eddie Guerrero really affected him too.

But can it really be that brain damage can make you murder your family? It just doesn't seem believable. Really strange case.


----------



## TheBlackBard (Nov 22, 2021)

AwakenTheSkies said:


> Yeah, the case of Chris Benoit is truly a mystery. He was very well regarded by everyone from what I've heard. I listened to some podcasts with Chris Jericho (who was his friend) and maybe Chris' son? Who was getting into wrestling as well. This was like 2 years ago. From what they said, his brain had really deteriorated. There was medication involved, some domestic disputes. The death of Eddie Guerrero really affected him too.
> 
> But can it really be that brain damage can make you murder your family? It just doesn't seem believable. Really strange case.




I don't see why not, honestly. Stranger things have happened, especially if the brain is damaged badly enough to make a person believe something. Hell, people with dementia don't remember their family members at times, could perceive them to be a threat.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

LostTheTone said:


> You do know that when escaped slaves fled north, they weren't fleeing to New York, right? They were fleeing to Canada because Britain would not send them back to their masters. There hasn't been a slave in Britain since 1066.
> 
> Oh and Britain literally used it's imperial power to end the transatlantic slave trade, by forcing Spain, France and Portugal to cease transporting slaves to the Americas. Yeah, y'all kept it legal for another 50 years anyway, even as Britain was the sole anti-slavery world power to have ever existed.
> 
> ...



*stares in 18th century Indian*


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 22, 2021)

nice to see that cognitive dissonance and revisionist nationalism are worldwide problems.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 22, 2021)

For what it's worth I thought your comment was funny because Britian, not unlike the US, has its own unique fucked up history. It's kind of a pot calling the kettle black situation 



LostTheTone said:


> You do know that when escaped slaves fled north, they weren't fleeing to New York, right? They were fleeing to Canada because Britain would not send them back to their masters. There hasn't been a slave in Britain since 1066.
> 
> Oh and Britain literally used it's imperial power to end the transatlantic slave trade, by forcing Spain, France and Portugal to cease transporting slaves to the Americas. Yeah, y'all kept it legal for another 50 years anyway, even as Britain was the sole anti-slavery world power to have ever existed.



So Britain's Slave Trade Act that effectively ended the African was passed in March 1807. Earlier that month the US banned importation of slaves and had already banned US ships from participating in international slave trade in 1794. Neither country actually made slavery illegal until later. 1833 for British Empire (with some exceptions that persisted until 1843, specifically India) and 1865 (or 63 if you want to start with the Emancipation Proclamation) for the US. Not sure where you got 50 years from if we're going by when the law said owning a slave was illegal. Was Britain ahead of the curve here and using their military for good? Yes. The sole anti-slavery power? That's a lot more complicated. The US and Britain actually worked together at timea during this period to intercept slave ships (look up the Africa Squadron as well as the Webster-Ashburton Treaty).



LostTheTone said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many European tyrants has the US fought by the way? Because Britain fought every single would be dictator in Europe for 6 centuries. French ones, Spanish ones, Austrian ones, Russian ones; whoever showed up really. We even fought the pope, my dude. *Opposing totalitarian in any form for the whole of modern history.*



Yes I'm sure India and Middle East feel this way. Or any of the other colonists that rebelled against the empire.



LostTheTone said:


> But y'know, Britain is evil because we invented liberalism, and was by far the most progressive empire in world history.
> 
> And, frankly, it's a bit fucking rich for septic tanks who assume that the whole world shares their extremely short and desperately genocidal history to start saying that British history is something uniquely awful.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 22, 2021)

AwakenTheSkies said:


> Yeah, the case of Chris Benoit is truly a mystery. He was very well regarded by everyone from what I've heard. I listened to some podcasts with Chris Jericho (who was his friend) and maybe Chris' son? Who was getting into wrestling as well. This was like 2 years ago. From what they said, his brain had really deteriorated. There was medication involved, some domestic disputes. The death of Eddie Guerrero really affected him too.
> 
> But can it really be that brain damage can make you murder your family? It just doesn't seem believable. Really strange case.


CTE is basically the equivalent of trauma induced alzheimers, so yeah, it could absolutely make you do crazy shit. Alzheimer's patients can be pretty violent ime, and those are just the little old grannies.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 22, 2021)

Slavery was abolished in India in 1861. The 1843 Act only outlawed the sale of humans and expressed a guarantee that the government would not enforce punishments of its own on escaped slaves (although slave holders would also not be punished for doling out their own punishment nor for owning slaves). Either way, it's before the USA's prohibition of slavery in 1865. Well, IDK, arguably, slavery still exists in India, just in a different form than it used to.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

5 pages in, and I still don't know if looking at a painting made by Hitler makes me a Bad Guy.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> 5 pages in, and I still don't know if looking at a painting made by Hitler makes me a Bad Guy.


 We're all gonna burn in christian hell for seeing that one a few pages back.


----------



## Dooky (Nov 22, 2021)

Wow! All these scandals I had no idea existed!


----------



## Ordacleaphobia (Nov 22, 2021)

I'm a "let the law figure it out" kind of guy, which I'm going to guess is not a popular perspective.
Like everyone's said, there's levels to everything; but generally speaking, there's a few arguments that hold a lot of weight for me:

If it was illegal, the law should be involved. And if the law gets involved, someone is either going to be punished appropriately, or found not guilty. If the law is not involved, it either likely isn't a big enough deal to 'cancel' someone to me, or we're looking at an eternal he-said-she-said...doesn't cut it IMO.
Everyone needs to feed their family. I'm not going to try and sentence a man to flipping burgers for the rest of his life because he did something I think is shitty; again, unless we're talking about some very extreme circumstances.
It's never just one person. That first Dealer EP was one of my favorite releases of the *decade*. Does that disappear because it looks like their frontman was a dirtbag? And should I 'punish' everyone involved in its creation for the same reason?
Another point previously mentioned was that it's also very important to differentiate between being a fan of _*the art*_ or being a fan of _*the artist*_. Especially when considering the difference between continuing to _*enjoy*_ the art, or continuing to _*purchase*_ the art.

To use AILD as an example since this one seems to be discussed relatively often- I was never a fan of _Tim Lambesis_. I was, if we're being generous, a passive fan of AILD.
So when Tim got popped, it didn't subtract much from my enjoyment of their material that I was into. It made me think about it every time it queued up, but didn't _hinder_ the experience as much as it just _altered_ it. And when Tim had served his time, emerging (as what I genuinely believe to be) a changed man, and new AILD showed up- I have no reason to write it off.

I guess I just tend to be very hesitant to write people / projects off like that because there's just so much detail and context we'll really never be privy to to provide a full, comprehensive understanding of whatever is being talked about. Then there's the ripple effect -to jump off on Lostprophets again, that was a band that I was super into as a kid. _Last Train Home _and _Shinobi vs. Dragon Ninja_ were two of the first songs I learned how to play when I started drumming; and I still love them for what they are- but god is it tough to queue them up without spending the whole time thinking about what an unbelievable monster Ian was. Then you look at the rest of the guys, and they were all collateral damage- they tried to get other projects off the ground after Ian got locked up but fell on their face, and I can't help but think that it's because their names are tainted due to their involvement in that band. Nobody involved is really going to want to say that they worked on it, all the material is just going to languish and it's just...sad all around. I think about being in their position and fuck man does that feel unfair. Career off, over- hope you had a parachute and a back up plan. So while this was certainly a case where I (and almost everyone else) felt that the 'right' decision was to pull the plug on the whole thing, it still didn't feel 'good;' it just feels like more victims got created after the real damage had already been done.

tl;dr I guess is that I'll still probably listen to something I enjoy even if someone involved was a colossal fuckup- it'll just affect _how _I consume that media.



CanserDYI said:


> I'm not worried about what the law says, its like the judge who was asked to define what pornography is, and their response was something along the lines of "I don't know the definition, but you know it when you see it."
> 
> Its not about "16 in this country 18 in that country" because frankly I find it fucking gross to see 40 year old celebrities with their 18 year old girlfriends, fucking gross. If you have to even question what age they are, its fucking gross.



FWIW I didn't think either of you were being very aggressive- it's just a very charged topic that's pretty tough to discuss without it escalating like this.
I love that you grabbed that quote though, because I always considered that an excellent definition, and I think the same definition applies perfectly here.

@LostTheTone is pointing to the many _other_ ridiculous things that these people do, of varying degrees of legality, that people tend to handwave away and write off as 'creatives being creatives.' If I were to tell the folks at my boring white collar office job about my affinity for psychedelic drugs, I'm sure that wouldn't go well for me. But if I was making a living out of playing guitar instead of shitposting about it and did the same on an interview, *nobody *would care; because that's how artists are, right?

However- _they should_, because it's still against the law. The law that we all agree we should stick to, but are all willing to disregard certain parts of. Except on AOC- people are extremely hesitant to get involved in AOC conversations because of exactly what happened here, and it's why this post is so comedically verbose; nobody wants to risk getting labelled as a pedo sympathizer because that is one of the most broadly and heavily disdained group of people in the world. People are (rightly so) _*extremely *_protective of children and as a result, are uneasy with decisions that could potentially expose them to risk like this. But he's right; there are situations where, with a limited knowledge of context and first hand experience, an offense that may actually not be 'a big deal,' gets blown up to become this huge scandal because an AOC violation was involved and that's something everyone can get behind, while simultaneously being completely unconcerned with a different favorite artist that may have a huge substance abuse problem.

That is _*not*_ to say that situation is a frequent occurrence, I am not saying that sleeping with underage people is 'ok,' or even that I agree with this point necessarily- and I am not trying to make excuses for these people or diminish the things they've done; but these things are worth thinking about. He isn't arguing for more leniency, he's arguing for consistency- a rising tide raises all ships and we can't just say 'lean on the law' when we don't consistently _apply _the law. I mean shit, he got me...I see 'underage' and start to pre-emptively get torqued up, but I'd look at, say, Michael Keene's drug spiral, and I don't think "that fool needs to be arrested, think of how many careers he derailed and people he's hurt," I just think it's unfortunate and hope he improves himself.


----------



## Ralyks (Nov 22, 2021)

AwakenTheSkies said:


> Yeah, the case of Chris Benoit is truly a mystery. He was very well regarded by everyone from what I've heard. I listened to some podcasts with Chris Jericho (who was his friend) and maybe Chris' son? Who was getting into wrestling as well. This was like 2 years ago. From what they said, his brain had really deteriorated. There was medication involved, some domestic disputes. The death of Eddie Guerrero really affected him too.
> 
> But can it really be that brain damage can make you murder your family? It just doesn't seem believable. Really strange case.



They confirmed his brain resembled that of an 85 year old Alzheimer's patient. And yeah Eddies death was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back.


----------



## xzacx (Nov 22, 2021)

When I think about this topic, and how I've reacted to these situations, I tend to differentiate between someone doing something bad, and being a "bad person." I have a hard time enjoying the art of someone who perpetuates ideologies I don't agree with, for example. But someone who did something bad in the heat of a moment, took responsibility, and showed remorse? I probably can continue to enjoy their work.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Nov 22, 2021)

Art has a job. The job of art is to disturb the comfortable and comfort the disturbed. If you enjoyed the fact that the music you like to listen to freaked other people out because of riffs/lyrics/subject matter how can you get freaked out when the people that made the shit you enjoyed eventually do some shit that freaks YOU out. 

You as a consumer are not the judge and jury. Listen and pay, but you’re not the judge, you’re a consumer. The idea that you get to dictate anything except what you pay for is ludicrous. 

People aren’t perfect and make all kinds of huge mistakes. If they’re talented, people tend to let them off unless it becomes a big deal when they get caught and it’s made public, and that’s the fuckin worst kind of hypocrisy. 

‘Oh shit this is public now, I’ll have to condemn because of public opinion.’ 

Fuck that, be a man and condemn in the first place if that’s what you feel. If you don’t, then DON’T cave just to be part of the metoo crowd. 

Louis C.K. jerked off in front of some people. Given his material this doesn’t seem even remotely out of character lol

Did it make me stop listening? Nah. That dude is an artist; he’s top 3 for me in comedy in the last ten years.

Was what he did reprehensible? Not in the least. Dude ganked his junk in front of people that were getting paid to be there and could have left any time but STAYED. Fuck it, he said he did it, he apologized and moved on, but cancel culture doesn’t seem to want to let him.

Chappelle didn’t even do anything wrong, but people think he did and are trying to cancel him too, which is just stupid.

Point being that for me…fuck it man. If you aren’t raping kids or whatever, you’re a celebrity/rich guy/rich woman that fucked up and made a human mistake. Own it and I’ll respect that and keep listening and buying.

Problem with all this shit is that people laugh when it’s on other people but can’t take the finger pointed at them. When that happens, it turns to ‘hate speech’ and has to get DEALT WITH. 

Fuck everyone that can’t take a joke.


----------



## BenjaminW (Nov 22, 2021)

Honestly I'm much more worried about whether or not I like an artist because of their work rather than who they are as a person. 

For example, I've been a huge Michael Jackson fan for years because of his music, but there's no chance in hell I will ever condone anything/everything regarding his pedophilia allegations.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

steinmetzify said:


> Louis C.K. jerked off in front of some people. Given his material this doesn’t seem even remotely out of character lol
> 
> Did it make me stop listening? Nah. That dude is an artist; he’s top 3 for me in comedy in the last ten years.
> 
> ...



To be specific, Louis C.K., who is 6' and probably around 200lbs, refused to let cornered women leave the room while he masturbated, and when they protested he and his agent threatened thier careers and the careers of their families and friends. 

A lot of the reporting on what he did was highly sanitized, but if you or I did it, we'd be in jail and have to register as sex offenders. 

He made a couple tepid apologies, didn't perform for one year, and then went right back to work. 

Listen, I loved his work. He is a very talented comedian. But, what he did was gross and he really should have gone to prison. I can't really watch or listen to his stuff without thinking of how terrifying and uncomfortable his victims were. 

It just never seemed like he was that sorry. He complained about the money he lost, but now it's part of his set and he's profiting off the experience. Again, it's just sort of gross.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Nov 22, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> To be specific, Louis C.K., who is 6' and probably around 200lbs, refused to let cornered women leave the room while he masturbated, and when they protested he and his agent threatened thier careers and the careers of their families and friends.
> 
> A lot of the reporting on what he did was highly sanitized, but if you or I did it, we'd be in jail and have to register as sex offenders.
> 
> ...



@MaxOfMetal you and I have never had any sort of issue, so we can agree to disagree if you’re cool with that. 

I never heard that shit, I never saw any payoffs which in this #metoo culture I’m sure would have been publicized, and for the record I’m a 6’ ginger that weighs 220 and don’t believe that a guy with his dick out could stop a woman from leaving the room if they wanted to. 

Just me man. I get it, you have an idea and I do too, and they’re not the same. 

Ask you tho, you believe everyone that has a story about someone absolutely HAS to be believed?

I GET the culture man, I do. I just think that it can be often false. There was a guy that taught in my daughter’s school. I’d bet my whole LIFE on this guy, he was attentive, cared, made a difference and I really liked him. I’d put my entire bank on him never doing anything wrong, but a kid that was failing his class accused him of something. There was no proof, dude actually had an alibi and the cops never proved a damn thing, but the accusation cursed his ass and he works at a fuckin gas station now. 

You think that’s right or correct? That someone can be accused and still have their whole life just as affected as if they were tried and found guilty?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

steinmetzify said:


> @MaxOfMetal you and I have never had any sort of issue, so we can agree to disagree if you’re cool with that.
> 
> I never heard that shit, I never saw any payoffs which in this #metoo culture I’m sure would have been publicized, and for the record I’m a 6’ ginger that weighs 220 and don’t believe that a guy with his dick out could stop a woman from leaving the room if they wanted to.
> 
> ...



I mean, he admitted it. 

Again, I don't think he deserves the death penalty or anything, but if making millions of dollars and performing your craft in front of thousands is being "canceled" sign me up.


----------



## mongey (Nov 22, 2021)

wait , what did Maynard do ?


----------



## mongey (Nov 22, 2021)

for a long time the rich and famous have had a free pass to do whatever they want and get away with it I'm all for a culture the demands some responsibility, and ramifications from them. 

that doesn't mean I think they should be "cancelled" though, its up to the consumer of the art to decide if it is still someone they want to support.

using Louis CK as an example, it just makes him seem sad to me to a point its not funny anymore


----------



## Steinmetzify (Nov 22, 2021)

mongey said:


> using Louis CK as an example, it just makes him seem sad to me to a point its not funny anymore



So at this point, you’re saying that the art doesn’t transcend the person performing the art? What he did makes the shit he says not funny anymore?


----------



## Steinmetzify (Nov 22, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I mean, he admitted it.
> 
> Again, I don't think he deserves the death penalty or anything, but if making millions of dollars and performing your craft in front of thousands is being "canceled" sign me up.



So legit you can’t watch this guy do standup (his art) anymore? Even if what he says doesn’t have anything to do with what he did/what happened to him?


----------



## mongey (Nov 22, 2021)

steinmetzify said:


> So at this point, you’re saying that the art doesn’t transcend the person performing the art? What he did makes the shit he says not funny anymore?



yeah pretty much , but for me .I don't expect anyone to see it like me, or begrudge anyone who sees it different . 

I def don't think his career should be cancelled to everyone forever 

but to be perfectly honest I wasn't a massive fan before


----------



## Steinmetzify (Nov 22, 2021)

mongey said:


> yeah pretty much , but for me .I don't expect anyone to see it like me, or begrudge anyone who sees it different .
> 
> I def don't think his career should be cancelled to everyone forever
> 
> but to be perfectly honest I wasn't a massive fan before




Bro not for nothing but you’ve hit all this shit right there.

The part where you’re talking about not wanting to/feel like anyone should judge anybody for not feeling the way you do is exceptional in this culture, to put it lightly, these motherfuckers ain’t got the heart to fight me, or at the end of the day anyone that looks or spits or says anything out there that’s anything about what I’m like, it’s me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

steinmetzify said:


> So legit you can’t watch this guy do standup (his art) anymore? Even if what he says doesn’t have anything to do with what he did/what happened to him?



I mean, I'm perfectly capable of it, I just don't seek it out. 

The whole skeezy dad shtick was fucking brilliant, it just lost a lot of luster when it sort of came (no pun) to life.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

Funny how people get so into the rude, crude, vulgar, tell-it-like-it-is, it's-funny-cause-it's-true type comedians right up until being shocked when they act similarly off-stage. I mean you paid to listen to a man talk about masturbating, or get away with slurs, or take cheap jabs at people, or otherwise say all the things you supposedly can't say in polite company - what exactly did you expect? You paid for edgy, you got edgy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> Funny how people get so into the rude, crude, vulgar, tell-it-like-it-is, it's-funny-cause-it's-true type comedians right up until being shocked when they act similarly off-stage. I mean you paid to listen to a man talk about masturbating, or get away with slurs, or take cheap jabs at people, or otherwise say all the things you supposedly can't say in polite company - what exactly did you expect? You paid for edgy, you got edgy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Funny how people get so into the bloody, violent, pro-crime, pro-drug, anti-cop, type video games up until being shocked when people commit these acts in real life. 

I mean, that's how silly that sounds. 

I listen to all kinds of death metal and grind with gory lyrics and imagery, but I certainly don't want any of those guys to actually commit murder or anything. Same with horror movies. 

It's okay to play pretend.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 22, 2021)

I mean, some people do see it that way. I can't remember the last time I saw a big-ish name comedy routine that wasn't trying on some level to be a platform for some message, or work out some social issue, etc. Comedy really often tries to be a relatable experience on some level. I mean, google any random comedian, and I'd bet half of it is relationship deconstruction. Yeah, it's funny, but a lot of it is real stories.

And don't kid yourself, video games have that side too. They have just as much of those "trying to be relatable" and "trying to deconstruct society" and "trying to get a message across" types of things. Most of it is in the indie space, granted.

And hey - if you're following the Ubisofts and Activisions of the world, it turns out the people making edgy content for edgy people _actually do _tend to be edgy shitheads themselves too, so.... yes? That tracks, as far as your criticism.

Sure, we've proven that media doesn't create murderers, but that's a surface level reading of media's impact on people, and also not what I said.

What I said was -> if someone _creates edgy stuff_, it's not surprising when the creator turns out edgy themselves.
What I _did not say ->_ Watching something edgy transforms you into an edgelord.


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> 5 pages in, and I still don't know if looking at a painting made by Hitler makes me a Bad Guy.



And that's the point I was trying to make. Dude wasn't a bad artist, but was also literally fucking Hitler.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 22, 2021)

TedEH said:


> I mean, some people do see it that way. I can't remember the last time I saw a big-ish name comedy routine that wasn't trying on some level to be a platform for some message, or work out some social issue, etc. Comedy really often tries to be a relatable experience on some level. I mean, google any random comedian, and I'd bet half of it is relationship deconstruction. Yeah, it's funny, but a lot of it is real stories.
> 
> And don't kid yourself, video games have that side too. They have just as much of those "trying to be relatable" and "trying to deconstruct society" and "trying to get a message across" types of things. Most of it is in the indie space, granted.
> 
> ...



There's a line between being "edgy" and actually doing heinous things though. 

Talking about the more blue and vulgar parts of the human condition with humor and sexual battery are a world apart. Just like making a movie about a crazy serial killer and actually murdering someone is. 

If tomorrow a whole bunch of bodies are found in Michael C. Hall's crawl space, are we just going to smack our foreheads and go "gee, should have seen that coming"?


----------



## spudmunkey (Nov 22, 2021)

Not about music, but a conversation about "problematic" content creators and some thoughts on continuing to appreciate their art, and sort of talks a bit about how it may or may not be appropriate to "cancel" someone's content...and maybe there's not one answer. Feel free to skip to 8:48, as there's a lot of background info about Mario Batali's show up until that point. In the 5 minutes after that point, he brings up Cosby and not only him, but all of the other people who worked on the show and how "cancelling" the content affects them, too. Also brings up "proto-nazi" Wagner the composer, etc.


----------



## ramses (Nov 22, 2021)

There are no angels. We only have human beings.

If we demand art from saints, then we have nothing left.

Vivaldi had flaws. Bach had flaws. Stravinsky had flaws. Hendrix had flaws. Miles had flaws. Holdsworth was flawed. MJ had flaws. "Future musician hero" will be hopelessly flawed.

Grow a backbone and accept the human condition.


----------



## TheBlackBard (Nov 23, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a line between being "edgy" and actually doing heinous things though.
> 
> Talking about the more blue and vulgar parts of the human condition with humor and sexual battery are a world apart. Just like making a movie about a crazy serial killer and actually murdering someone is.
> 
> If tomorrow a whole bunch of bodies are found in Michael C. Hall's crawl space, are we just going to smack our foreheads and go "gee, should have seen that coming"?




Definitely wouldn't condemn him for it based on the character he plays.


----------



## chinnybob (Nov 23, 2021)

Start Something is one of my favourite albums and I stayed away from it for a long time until I read an interview with some of the other guys from Lostprophets where they said something along the lines of asking people to remember that there were other people involved in that band, not just Ian Watkins. I'm still a little uneasy listening to the album and don't do so very often but I thought that was an interesting point, obviously Ian was front and centre of that band and you can't exactly listen to the album and ignore him, but I do think it's worth bearing in mind that he was only one part of the group. Life can be unfair and I feel bad for the rest of the band that some really great music they worked so hard on could be consigned to the scrap heap because their singer turned out to be a monster. Personally I can listen to their music and enjoy it (first two albums anyway, rest isn't great) but I certainly question myself every time I do so.

It's a really interesting question. COVID has thrown up a lost of this, every time an artist I like turns out to be an anti-vaxxer or something stupid like that I lose a little respect for them, but ultimately I don't think it has bearing on the quality of their art (subjective as it is), it's more about how much we are able to separate the art from the artist. That in itself can be tricky: some art is so intrinsically linked to the personal experience of the artist that it's impossible to do so, and finding out that the artist was not who you thought would change the way you perceive the music. Adele just released an album about her divorce, if it turned out she'd been slapping her husband about (I have absolutely no reason to believe this is even remotely true please don't sue me Adele I love your music) it would change how those songs were interpreted.


----------



## TedEH (Nov 23, 2021)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a line between being "edgy" and actually doing heinous things though.


I never said that there wasn't. I made the very simple observation that it isn't shocking to me that edgy content sometimes comes from edgy people - and you extrapolated that into all these arguments I was never trying to make about whether media makes people violent etc.

If you insist on going down that route - there's ALSO a big difference between an actor playing a role that was written for them, and a comedian who is generally representing their own character. I don't expect Dexter to be a murderer in real life, but I DO expect a comedian's real-life character to be related to their on-stage character a lot of the time. An actor is an entertainer, but not every entertainer is acting.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 23, 2021)

ramses said:


> If we demand art from saints, then we have nothing left.



Surely there are some canonized saints that were artists. Can we get a Catholic in here with a ruling?


----------



## LostTheTone (Nov 23, 2021)

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm a "let the law figure it out" kind of guy, which I'm going to guess is not a popular perspective



Well put, sir.

And exactly as you say, I think the only consistent standard we can harken to is what the law actually is. Not what it could say, or perhaps what is should say, but what it says today. We can all do whatever in our own lives, but the law is the defacto social standard.

The histrionic cries that following the law isn't good enough is, frankly, insane to me. We live in a time where "between consenting adults" places the gender or race or practices of ones partner as beyond reasonable criticism. That's a good thing too. But you have to apply that consistently. 

The law determines what an adult is, and what consent is. If you believe differently then that's up to you, but you're going to get incredibly short shrift from me because that's the same stuff that was used to demonize gay and interracial couples not that long ago. Here in the UK the age of consent for gay men was actually higher; 18 vs 16; until the 2000s. That was blatant homophobia; if a 17 year old chap can consent to sex with a lady he can consent to sex with a man, surely? As a society we don't necessarily agree that 18 or 17 or 16 is necessarily correct, but we do generally agree that none of these ages is wrong enough to worry about all too much. Especially as (in general) we are people who had adventurous teenage years, we mostly know that teenagers are horny idiots and that it'll be messy trying to stop them sleeping with each other.

I do strongly agree that almost all opposition for a "higher standard" is driven by the desire not to do anything that might possibly be construed as supporting anyone preying on children. But this is fundamentally misplaced. It cannot possibly be supporting pedophiles to support following the law. These are mutually exclusive. And in most places "grooming" and similar is illegal in it's own right, so even those people who strike up a relationship with a minor then wait for them to turn the legal age are also breaking the law.

In any case, a non-clear line for consent that some have argued for will actually have the opposite effect intended, and makes it easier to abuse children.

All standards have to work on reasonable belief in things. This is already (slightly) problematic with brightline age of consent laws. If you meet someone in an over 18 venue, then it is reasonable for you to assume they are over 18, and so you have no duty to ask. Why would you? This place checks IDs. Problem is that not everywhere actually does check IDs, and older teens like to go places to meet cooler, older people and be bought drinks. This is one reason why people, especially those in the past, would almost certainly never be charged for their activities with groupies and so forth. Because even if they should have known better, its hard to argue they had any reasonable way to know.

When even that standard is removed, and we land at a very post-modern interwoven layers approach then there is immediate possibility for abuse. No-one can ask how old you thought she was, they can only ask if it was reasonable for you to believe that the other party was capable of giving consent. So, you must be judged for whether something in your brain was reasonable to believe about something in someone else's brain. That is not going to be very rigorous, and in any case it requires in a vacuum for people (largely men) to "not take yes for an answer" which is optimistic at best. For those who are especially keen to sleep with underage persons, it is pretty easy to construct a situation which backs up your claim that you reasonably believed they had the capacity. Even in medical ethics this stuff is super complex, and assessing competency is not a layman's job.

The real problem with the French academics occasional attempts to abolish age of consent, and instead adopt a "rape is just rape" approach is that we presently accept that underage people cannot consent, even if they think they can. Which is a bit patronizing, but its the only way to make a system work. For underage sex at the moment, the minor does not need to complain. Again, it is easy to see how those who wish to have sex with children could be shielded by only preying on children who wont complain; who are either keen on the idea or who are scared or shamed into silence. Without an age of consent these all become forgotten victims. It is bad enough today that children are abused and fear to speak up, it is unthinkable to give them less legal protection not more. Can you imagine trying to prosecute an historic child sexual abuse case where the accused can say "Nah she was into it" and thats actually a legit defense?

The law isn't great. But it is also what there is. When someone says that just following the law is "horrific" I have to wonder how they reached that point, and whether they apply that to any other legal standards. Do they snatch the beer out of a 23 year olds hand? Do they demand everyone drives at 20mph?

The law sets down standards to follow - Minimum standards, but standards nevertheless. Even when you want things to be different, you still live in a world that is governed by those standards. We live in nations that are legal constructions. Our laws matter. They are part of our social contract. They draw the lines we have socially agreed not to step across. They can be wrong, and they can be bad. But they are still there. How is that for "not infringing boundaries"?

You can judge someone else for their actions, even though they are legal. Sure. Thats up to you. You can tut if you want. But the liberal social contract is that if each of us follows the law, we each can live in peace with our fellow citizens. That is simply how our nations are constructed.

Its fine to say "Well I don't like X" if you want. But you must respect that others have the right to do whatever they like within the boundaries of the law. That's what the law is for, damnit. You can try to change the law, but it is a general principle of jurisprudence that you cant make retroactive laws; because the courts strongly agree that we can only follow the laws that existed at the time. Tomorrow the law might be anything, and people cannot live under what some bloke on the internet thinks the law should be just in case it happens.

And even if someone does really want the law changed, the "I know it when I see it" standard really only works for pornography. Because the problem is... You aren't there to decide for people whether they should continue with this liaison or not. The "if you have to ask..." standard is similarly problematic. Because surely we should encourage people to actually find out how old their prospective partner is, right? If we land on "if you have to ask" then people simply wont ask at all, because ignorance is a defence to reasonable belief.

Think about all of this from the other side of the equation - Put yourself into the shoes of the teen who is being chatted up by an older person. At present the law says "You aren't 16, he will go to jail". The more complex and nuanced approach will land at "its probably alright, if you really want to, after all you are smart and mature for your age right?". What right do your parents have to criticize your "older boyfriend" (ie groomer) when the law even says that it might be OK for complex reasons? What happens when your parents call the police and they say "No crime here, carry on fingering sir"?

It is one thing to say that the age of consent should be higher. It is another thing to say that the principle of the law is utterly wrong, but that you lack any alternatives that real people could follow in the real world.

Oh and before anyone starts saying I support child molesters - I work in criminal justice reform. I strongly believe many laws need to change. But I also strongly think that laws have to be applied to child molesters. And that cuts both ways; they should go to prison and go on a register. But they also shouldn't be attacked in the street or driven to suicide, as happened to someone I worked with a few years ago. 

As far as I'm concerned, the person who's motives should be questioned is anyone who wants to abolish the rule of law with regards to adults having sex with children. The only benefit I can see from a vaguer and more arguable system is that it is much easier to sleep with children. Although perhaps I should offer the benefit of the doubt; perhaps those suggesting this approach are criminal defence lawyers? They certainly arent people who want to protect children from predatory adults though.

Age of consent is the best we have come up with.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 23, 2021)

^ Anyone have a Cliff's Notes of that? Kinda busy around here.


----------



## BlackMastodon (Nov 23, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Interesting. I guess I will say... it depends. I think there is a difference between enjoying the art of a sadistic painter that died hundreds of years ago to supporting a sadistic painter that is alive and well right now. There is a line between appreciating the artist and actively supporting the artist. Therefore, we often vote with our wallets. At the moment, there are a lot of people that are having that discussion right now about Eric Clapton. He didn't violate any laws, but he has been actively against vaccinations, mandates, etc. His politics and beliefs are causing a lot of debates among fans regarding if they will support him in the future. Again, people vote with their wallets - and they either buy those tickets or they don't. I feel an artist should create and do as they please, but that comes with the cost of altering their patronage.


Not gonna sift through the rest of the thread yet, but re: Clapton - I'm less offended by his shitty stance than I am about the absolute dogshit song he wrote about his shitty stance. It sounds like the most inept, whiny little bullshit about how sad he is and feels personally attacked that the whole world is facing the same pandemic. Grow up, Clapton, you selfish prick, get 2 shots and/or stay home, and if everyone does their part then you can go back to loving other peoples' wives.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 23, 2021)

BlackMastodon said:


> Not gonna sift through the rest of the thread yet, but re: Clapton - I'm less offended by his shitty stance than I am about the absolute dogshit song he wrote about his shitty stance. It sounds like the most inept, whiny little bullshit about how sad he is and feels personally attacked that the whole world is facing the same pandemic. Grow up, Clapton, you selfish prick, get 2 shots and/or stay home, and if everyone does their part then you can go back to loving other peoples' wives.



Robert Cray dropped off the tour and effectively ended his personal and professional relationship with Clapton because of lyrics.


----------



## couverdure (Nov 23, 2021)

I've been having trouble listening to All Time Low lately because of the recent allegations towards their guitarist Jack Barakat. I'm not sure which side should I be on because the band put out a statement denying them and saying that they'll go through legal procedures to prove or disprove any evidence. The people who got mad at them for saying that are also the same people who'd get mad if they were silent about this, so their culture would just continue to demonize them no matter what.

The pop-punk/metalcore scene has a long history of band members being sexually involved with underaged fans, mostly female. A lot of them have them proven, but there have also been false cases like Lloyd Roberts from Neck Deep, who got kicked out of the band once allegations were brought against him, and yet the band didn't let him back after everything has been disproven.

It's a gigantic shame for me because they've been my all-time (no pun intended) favorite band since my teenage years and they've had a good reputation for their entire career. To give me the benefit of the doubt, Alex Gaskarth writes everything for the band and as far as I know, he's mostly innocent, so if Barakat's allegations do turn out to be true, chances are that he'd get kicked out and the quality of their future music wouldn't drastically change as much despite being a member from the start.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 23, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Surely there are some canonized saints that were artists. Can we get a Catholic in here with a ruling?


Religious art these days:


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 23, 2021)

bostjan said:


> Religious art these days:



To be fair, that is pretty metal.


----------



## chipchappy (Nov 23, 2021)

People seem to be thinking that if you're even acknowledging an artist with a fucked up personal live, you're supporting them. This isn't necessarily the case. 

I'm going to expose myself to (subjectively) good art, take it in, think about what it expresses, what went into it, what makes it different etc, and then toss it to the side like lots of other things, without promoting them or giving them my money, if thats an option (which in 2021 it definitely is) I'll still condemn the creator and discourage people from giving them money if they can help it, but selfishly as an artist, I'll happily enjoy their fruits without outwardly supporting them if possible. I guess that means I can separate the two, but hey, life is short. If I can enjoy someones work without giving them any kind of reparations or public support, I might as well, just to experience it. 




ramses said:


> Vivaldi had flaws. Bach had flaws. Stravinsky had flaws. Hendrix had flaws. Miles had flaws. Holdsworth was flawed. *MJ had flaws.* "Future musician hero" will be hopelessly flawed..



Oye man, I get what you're saying, but those other people you mentioned besides MJ didn't have a history of seducing and manipulating small children/parents of small children to have sex with them and modify their houses to spy on guests/optimize their deviant behavior. It's a _little _different.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Nov 23, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> ^ Anyone have a Cliff's Notes of that? Kinda busy around here.



"Follow the law, even if it's stupid and arbitrary."


----------



## ramses (Nov 23, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Surely there are some canonized saints that were artists. Can we get a Catholic in here with a ruling?



Do we really want to derail this thread with the history of child abuse — and worst — by the catholic church (and all its "saints") ?


----------



## BlackMastodon (Nov 23, 2021)

ramses said:


> Do we really want to derail this thread with the history of child abuse — and worst — by the catholic church (and all its "saints") ?


Hitler was already brought up, so I think by one of those old school internet meme Rules™ we hit some kind of bingo or something?


----------



## couverdure (Nov 24, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> To be fair, that is pretty metal.


----------



## Adieu (Nov 24, 2021)

With pop punk it's as predictable as with Catholic clergy

If your target audience and fanbase is younger teens, you'll have some younger teen diddlers

Same as how a job that recruits with promises of salvation, fulfilling work with youths, men who are atttacted to adult women need not apply = gonna collect kiddie diddlers and especially choirboy diddlers.


----------



## ArtDecade (Nov 24, 2021)

ramses said:


> Do we really want to derail this thread with the history of child abuse — and worst — by the catholic church (and all its "saints") ?



Uh.... yup. Let's do it.


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 24, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Uh.... yup. Let's do it.


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 9, 2021)

So now I'm feeling weird about listenibg to Daughters after reading Kristen Hayters (Lingua Ignota) statement about Alexis Marshall....


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 9, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> So now I'm feeling weird about listenibg to Daughters after reading Kristen Hayters (Lingua Ignota) statement about Alexis Marshall....



Daughters is one of those bands that BrooklynVegan gets hot under the collar for. Just don't listen to them at all and you won't find yourself in a moral quandary.


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 9, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Daughters is one of those bands that BrooklynVegan gets hot under the collar for. Just don't listen to them at all and you won't find yourself in a moral quandary.



But I do enjoy Hell Songs...


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 9, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> But I do enjoy Hell Songs...



How about some alternative Hell songs....


----------



## Schweick (Dec 9, 2021)

I have a self-portrait drawn by Tommy Pitera. Does that count?


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Dec 9, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> So now I'm feeling weird about listenibg to Daughters after reading Kristen Hayters (Lingua Ignota) statement about Alexis Marshall....



I was never much into daughters, but I just read her statement and holy shit. I definitely picked up on a lot of this on the Caligula album, but to hear her tell it.... god damn. I didn't realize her life-threatening injury was _from that relationship._


----------



## død (Dec 10, 2021)

Never listening to Daughters again. Hope Alexis makes good on his threats of suicide.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 10, 2021)

wheresthefbomb said:


> I was never much into daughters, but I just read her statement and holy shit. I definitely picked up on a lot of this on the Caligula album, but to hear her tell it.... god damn. I didn't realize her life-threatening injury was _from that relationship._



I don't have a dog in this race, but I think the two of them are damaged goods and being together made it much, much worse.


----------



## BlackMastodon (Dec 10, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> So now I'm feeling weird about listenibg to Daughters after reading Kristen Hayters (Lingua Ignota) statement about Alexis Marshall....


Aw shit... I really liked that last Daughters album.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Dec 10, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> I don't have a dog in this race, but I think the two of them are damaged goods and being together made it much, much worse.



I think this is true in very many abusive relationships. Victims and abusers seek each other the same way we all have that friend who keeps dating trashcan humans and getting their heart broken. I've been in emotionally abusive relationships, and while it in no way excuses the other person's behavior, my naivete and poor boundaries allowed those situations to go on for far longer than they would now.

Ideally I'd like to live in a community that looks upon things like that as "this _situation _is toxic" versus "this person/these people are toxic," but that requires everyone to hold themselves and each other accountable. A cursory look into the Daughters person's history makes it seem an awful lot like his peers have known about his behavior for a while and simply done nothing, which has also been my experience of how these kinds of things are typically handled in music scenes.

That, to me, is the bad in all of this. It's not what they did per se, it's the reaction to it by them and their peers. He flatly denies _everything_ which is a bold enough departure from established reality that he's obviously used to getting away with it.


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 10, 2021)

Yeah, this situation is going to get bad. Also, Sargent House said they quietly cut ties with Alexis back in August and decided not to say anything until Kristen felt ok sharing the story.


----------



## CanserDYI (Dec 11, 2021)

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 100976
> 
> Yeah, this situation is going to get bad. Also, Sargent House said they quietly cut ties with Alexis back in August and decided not to say anything until Kristen felt ok sharing the story.


I dont know the context, what band is this?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 11, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> I dont know the context, what band is this?


daughters. Lead singer of Lingua Ignota claims he abused the shit out of her emotionally and physically.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 11, 2021)

CanserDYI said:


> I dont know the context, what band is this?



Sargent House is an indie label. They handled Daughters' lead singer's solo project and decided to move on from him a few months ago.


----------



## mmr007 (Dec 11, 2021)

I'm sorry but eff that chick....seriously. There are two ways to look at this story and neither one allows me any sympathy for her.

Scenario #1-Her story of rape is so over the top unbelievable the only thing missing from the allegations is that he was wearing a MAGA hat and carrying rope at the time.

Scenario #2- Her story is true and in which case can summed up thusly *based on her own words*.....She was repeatedly raped and penetrated without consent and that one those sexual encounters was so brutal that it damaged her spine, her bladder and her bowels but she never said anything because she feared he would cheat on her and get his violent sex from another woman. So now I am supposed to sympathize with the waif that got CALIGULA tattooed on her chest. Why? Because she was mentally abused which thus afforded her ABSOLUTELY NO AGENCY as an adult when it came to sexual abuse and sex crimes? Why does having sex with your abuser afford you an extra level of understanding we don't offer other people we look at as idiots for allowing themselves to be manipulated or scammed or harmed?

Even on this website we justifiably ridicule those who follow Qanon or other cults for allowing themselves to believe stupid shit that is not in their best interest as we all sit on the outside proud that we know better and yet if someone is in a sexual relationship they get a pass for allowing someone else to manipulate them into accepting other forms of abuse? She is not a 6 year old child subject to an abusive parent or a puppy subject to an abusive owner. She is a woman who in her own words let herself be raped because she would be sad if her rapist left her for another woman. But hey.....she wrote a song about it. Want to hear it? Here it goes.....

Sorry but if this guy is the rapist she claims the excuse for not turning him in sooner can't be...well then I will be single and sad. I'll take #metoo# more seriously if this chick didn't wait years to call her lover and say...."I'm glad you enjoy prison sex so much because I called the cops about what you did to me last night. They should be at your door any minute."

And before you say "Hey you don't understand the psychology of abuse in a relationship." No I don't. I don't qualify as an expert or even as a novice in the area. What I can do, again, is ask the question....why does being in a sexual relationship with your mental abuser create an expectation of understanding from us, on the outside, that is not afforded others who are mentally abused and manipulated?


----------



## død (Dec 11, 2021)

Yikes


----------



## Masoo2 (Dec 11, 2021)

That's probably the worst take I've read on my seven years on SSO.

Kristen Hayter (Lingua Ignota) is a saint and one of the best musicians of our generation, I hope she gets justice or at the minimum closure for what has happened to her. 

Makes listening to Caligula that much harder knowing some of the context surrounding the themes...


----------



## mmr007 (Dec 11, 2021)

If you are responding to my comment allow me to retort. I'm not a religious person so I don't know what actions qualify one for sainthood. The only modern saint I know of is mother Theresa so I have to assume by your assertion the spectrum of criteria for sainthood runs the gamut. So so far I'm not discounting your assertion ...I'm just thinking out loud. You also stated she is one of the best musicians of our generation. I've not heard a single one of her songs so I can't argue. You hope she gets justice and/or closure. If the allegations are true I certainly hope she does too. So far we seem not to be in disagreement except for your assertion that is the worst take you've read on SSO in 7 years. I can't argue with that because I don't know what you've read and any comment that takes a harsh stance on reporting rape on a guitar forum I would have to imagine will not be well received. So all in all we are still in agreement it seems.

But I will stand by my assertion....that the allegations this woman has made have ruined this man's life already. AND...if they are true...he deserves to have his life ruined. But it seems the pendulum has swung to far the other way for victim blaming. Rightfully so we (sort of) stopped asking a woman who was raped...what she was wearing. It is not relevant to the heinous crime of rape. But if a woman allows herself to be repeatedly raped and have her insides permanently damaged but doesn't report it and doesn't immediately leave but stays because, in her own words, she was fearful not of getting harmed more but that he would seek sexual gratification elsewhere and leave her lonely, I'm not going to ask what she was _*wearing*_, but am I not allowed to ask what was she *thinking*? That's the part I have issue with. That's not my take. It's hers. Better protect a rapist than be lonely.

The Unabomber's brother read a manifesto printed in the NY Times and had the courage to immediately turn his brother in and then collected the $1 million reward and gave it to the families of his brother's victims. That is courage. When something is wrong you know it right then and there. I can't give someone credit for eventually deciding rape is not cool.

My daughter was 13 when she was raped. By my ex-wife's now ex-husband. My daughter's life is ruined. See when my ex got together with this guy she was confronted with the fact he had raped two other 13 year old girls and even got one pregnant. Whittier and Long Beach detectives told her as much. She was also with him when he committed a sexual assault on two other teen girls. He was arrested and she was fired. And even though I had full custody of my 3 children, as a mother she got visitation. The court and the court psychologist told me that since my girls were 4years old and and and 13 months old he posed no threat because that relationship would end before they got to the ripe old rape-able age of 13. And one day my 4 year old little girl turned 13 and during her one week visitation was raped. My ex divorced him that day and hoped I wouldn't find out. I guess I should give her credit for finally deciding a rapist is not someone you should protect. In fact I might even nominate my ex for sainthood. But I doubt it.

My opinion is not colored by my painful experience of how it touched my life and my daughter's life. It is a calculated opinion based on the whole world as I see it, not just my world. Again....When something is wrong you know it right then and there


----------



## jaxadam (Dec 11, 2021)

Now THAT is one of the worst things I've read on my fifteen years on SSO. I'm glad I'm not you because I would probably be in jail for the rest of my life.


----------



## Ralyks (Dec 11, 2021)

What, and I cannot stress this enough, the actual fuck.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Dec 12, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> If you are responding to my comment allow me to retort…..




I know you weren’t looking to garner any sympathy or anything from that post, but I’m truly sorry that’s something that happened in your and your daughter’s life. That’s fucking brutal.

I also know it’s not your intention to get a rise out of people with your question and can certainly understand why you have it. Before I was 10 I had experienced all forms of abuse for years and even I had that same question for years. The unfortunate statistic is that there’s a chance you will end up having that question answered by getting a 2nd hand look into your daughter’s life in the future. I certainly hope not and that’s not meant to get a rise out of you in anyway, it’s just a shitty aspect that often comes along with abuse in earlier ages. It’s got a way of influencing decisions, sometimes unrelated to the abuse itself, at later stages in life. I do hope your daughter was/is getting help from a professional. It’s definitely none of my business, but damn I wish I got into therapy when I was a kid/teen.

And that’s why I’d say people tend to give a little more leeway towards victims of abuse, because of the way it can end up influencing your life in the future. There are so many trust aspects that get their wires crossed, especially if the abuse is perpetrated by a family member. Inherently, you’re supposed to be able to/taught to trust your family, the people you love. Mix some good ole’ fashioned abuse in with that at an early age, when you’re learning what trust and love are and you get some wires crossed that you have to uncross, often with the help of a professional. Some people never do.

Looking at the cults you mentioned, almost all of them end up having a leader who fucks all the women/daughters and it’s allowed to happen because their followers have trust for them. I’m sure if there were research done, they’d find a lot of those followers most likely suffered abuse themselves previously in life.

I’ll get into my experiences cause I can definitely speak from those without grasping at straws for insight from other’s experiences-fair warning, this makes people uncomfortable sometimes, so don’t read on if you get uncomfortable over really personal info on a guitar forum-

In my case, I had an aunt sexually abusing me when I was a kid. She was still essentially a kid, 12-14, and was most likely acting out what she had been taught by an abuser. The fucked up part about it is that my mother knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it. My dad bailed pretty early on to go play in a (shitty) touring cover band and then there were a string of extremely physically and verbally abusive boyfriends that came along with mom. One dude split my head open kicking over a rocking chair I was onto a cement floor, almost drowned me by forcing beer down my throat while I was choking one day, all kinds of fun childhood activities. There were many, many more ass kickings and I certainly don’t mean I got backhanded for lying or doing something wrong. I used to get the shit beat out of me. 

The only person I really had to trust was my mom and since the sexual abuse came from a woman, it led to a very skewed idea of how I could trust women in relationships or even in women in general. I would allow very damaging/toxic women to be in my life and do everything I could to make them happy. I just got divorced this past September, while the first 13 years of that relationship were really outstanding in the terms of a successful relationship, the last two years of it were fucking brutal and looking back at it, I can see exactly where those crossed wires came into play as my ex-wife started exhibiting some really shitty behavior and very much used my trust for her against me. I almost shot myself the day I found out she was cheating. My wires were crossed enough that I allowed this person to take everything I felt was worth living for away from me.

I thought since I already dealt with this shit in my 20’s, as far as therapy and goes and closing the chapter on my childhood, that I’d be fine in the future and I was good to go. Clearly that’s not the case and it’s something I’ll always have to be mindful of. There’s a certain personality I’m drawn to and I’m fully susceptible to being ‘duped’ by this personality if I don’t keep my head out of my ass.

It absolutely is my responsibility to steer clear of that and ultimately, I just need to trust my gut because had I done that, I wouldn’t have been in the situation I was with my ex-wife for the last two years. But therein lies the problem; I had so much trust for my ex at that point, I allowed it to trump the trust I had for myself when alarm bells were going off in my gut.That’s my bad as equally as it is her bad for abusing that trust. That was almost a fatal error on my part, so I can certainly understand how other people make the same mistakes. It was hard to walk away from that situation without tearing myself to shreds for allowing the deception to occur, that’s for sure. Also for trying to do whatever I could to make my wife happy after knowing something wasn’t right with her. It makes me equally laugh as it makes me want to puke looking back on it.

I can certainly side with your questioning quite a bit; I was often at odds with my therapist on more than one occasion because they very much took the “It’s not your fault” approach to certain aspects of the end of my marriage. Sure, it’s not my fault the marriage ended or my ex-wife made the decisions she did, but I made the choice to stick around after shit was obvious. A huge part of that is because I refuse to go back on my word once I promise or vow something, so the whole “Through thick and thin” part of the vows, I meant it.

There’s other contributing factors; I know people who have experienced abuse can often point out others who have been abused very easily. It’s like we wear a fucking beacon for each other and that’s how so many of us end up in toxic relationships. Ya find someone who understands the horrific shit you’ve been through and then it ends up taking place in your relationship, because another aspect is that often times, abusers are just repeating the abuse they experienced early on. And we’re almost all excellent manipulators because we learned how to manipulate in the worst of ways at an early age.

You mix those three things up and it’s a recipe for disaster and I wouldn’t be surprised in the least bit if that douche from Daughters was abused as a kid just the same.

Just like I believe mental illness is not the fault of those who have it, it IS their responsibility to address it; it’s not any different with dealing with the repercussions of childhood abuse. None of it’s our fault, but it IS our responsibility to ensure it doesn’t taint our lives in the future. So in that aspect, yeah, it was this woman’s responsibility to ensure she didn’t end up being in another shitty situation like that…..but we know how healthcare and therapy in the US is. It hasn’t been until recent times where we’ve been able to openly talk about this stuff without fear and finally mental illness is starting to be addressed seriously. We’ve got no clue what steps she’s taken in her life to get past the abuse she experienced early on and from the sounds of it, not much. I hope that’s a priority for her now.

My apologies for writing a book, but I believe your question was genuine and like I said, it’s something I’ve asked myself before, in regards to other people’s situations and even my own. I absolutely wish the best for you and your daughter and I sincerely hope she learns what she cannot invite into her life in the future as a result of what happened. That’s not to say she invited it into her life then, AT ALL, but knowing the repercussions of an event like that, well, it’s pretty much the answer to your question.


----------



## CanserDYI (Dec 12, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> If you are responding to my comment allow me to retort. I'm not a religious person so I don't know what actions qualify one for sainthood. The only modern saint I know of is mother Theresa so I have to assume by your assertion the spectrum of criteria for sainthood runs the gamut. So so far I'm not discounting your assertion ...I'm just thinking out loud. You also stated she is one of the best musicians of our generation. I've not heard a single one of her songs so I can't argue. You hope she gets justice and/or closure. If the allegations are true I certainly hope she does too. So far we seem not to be in disagreement except for your assertion that is the worst take you've read on SSO in 7 years. I can't argue with that because I don't know what you've read and any comment that takes a harsh stance on reporting rape on a guitar forum I would have to imagine will not be well received. So all in all we are still in agreement it seems.
> 
> But I will stand by my assertion....that the allegations this woman has made have ruined this man's life already. AND...if they are true...he deserves to have his life ruined. But it seems the pendulum has swung to far the other way for victim blaming. Rightfully so we (sort of) stopped asking a woman who was raped...what she was wearing. It is not relevant to the heinous crime of rape. But if a woman allows herself to be repeatedly raped and have her insides permanently damaged but doesn't report it and doesn't immediately leave but stays because, in her own words, she was fearful not of getting harmed more but that he would seek sexual gratification elsewhere and leave her lonely, I'm not going to ask what she was _*wearing*_, but am I not allowed to ask what was she *thinking*? That's the part I have issue with. That's not my take. It's hers. Better protect a rapist than be lonely.
> 
> ...


You're a strong man. I would have been put in prison that day, and there'd be a pound of flesh under my fingernails. 

Seriously, I know it probably took everything in you to not do something, and that is genuinely the better path as your children need you, not in jail because of revenge. 

Still though, I hope that fuck finds the rope really really quick and has it fail on him a few times.


----------



## mmr007 (Dec 12, 2021)

I don't want to derail this thread but no...after ten years it still hurts just as bad. I still cry several times a week. 

I don't want sympathy because others deal with pain as well...but I unloaded because I haven't talked about it in years to anyone and honestly I just didn't feel like being criticized for my "take" which I recognize is not a sympathetic one. I believe my position has merit. I don't know anything about this artist. Never heard of her or the singer that raped her before I read about their story in this thread (I know of Daughters and have only heard one of their songs). I don't know what demons she has or self respect problems she has but from my point of view if you know that something is so bad that you go public with it, don't ignore that it is so bad because you're still dating. Again, there is no other crime that we allow this type of forgiveness. If she was dating a bank robber and didn't tell anyone until they broke up and then went public we would blast her. He supposedly caused irreparable internal damage to her from repeated rapes and her excuse was she didn't want him to leave her. She knew, right then and there he was a bad dude. Love can be a weird thing and I am sure there are grey areas with rough play and certain fantasies meant to stay safe. My ex knew her guy was a rapist. She even met with one of the victims. But post divorce she was scared of being alone so she stayed with him and look at the consequences. That was exactly what this singer said...she submitted to mental and physical abuse and rape because she didn't want to be lonely. I'm no expert but most professional musicians have the ability to meet new people...it is kinda part of their job.

And I fully admit I don't "get" psychological issues that develop in certain relationships like stockholm syndrome. I admit that. If a movie sucks...I walk out of the theater. If a relationship sucks I walk out of it. With 8 billion people on planet earth I assume I can meet another person no? So after hearing about this situation and the women who accused marilyn manson and all the others I just found myself tired of hearing that these women wait for reasons I don't get to finally come clean about abuse. There is a reason why Harvey Weinstein had a casting couch....cuz it saw lots of use. It worked. There is a reason why this chick has internal injuries...because the women this Daughters singer dates don't want to be lonely. I need a better reason to feel sympathy.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Dec 12, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> I don't want to derail this thread but no...after ten years it still hurts just as bad. I still cry several times a week.
> 
> I don't want sympathy because others deal with pain as well...but I unloaded because I haven't talked about it in years to anyone and honestly I just didn't feel like being criticized for my "take" which I recognize is not a sympathetic one. I believe my position has merit. I don't know anything about this artist. Never heard of her or the singer that raped her before I read about their story in this thread (I know of Daughters and have only heard one of their songs). I don't know what demons she has or self respect problems she has but from my point of view if you know that something is so bad that you go public with it, don't ignore that it is so bad because you're still dating. Again, there is no other crime that we allow this type of forgiveness. If she was dating a bank robber and didn't tell anyone until they broke up and then went public we would blast her. He supposedly caused irreparable internal damage to her from repeated rapes and her excuse was she didn't want him to leave her. She knew, right then and there he was a bad dude. Love can be a weird thing and I am sure there are grey areas with rough play and certain fantasies meant to stay safe. My ex knew her guy was a rapist. She even met with one of the victims. But post divorce she was scared of being alone so she stayed with him and look at the consequences. That was exactly what this singer said...she submitted to mental and physical abuse and rape because she didn't want to be lonely. I'm no expert but most professional musicians have the ability to meet new people...it is kinda part of their job.
> 
> And I fully admit I don't "get" psychological issues that develop in certain relationships like stockholm syndrome. I admit that. If a movie sucks...I walk out of the theater. If a relationship sucks I walk out of it. With 8 billion people on planet earth I assume I can meet another person no? So after hearing about this situation and the women who accused marilyn manson and all the others I just found myself tired of hearing that these women wait for reasons I don't get to finally come clean about abuse. There is a reason why Harvey Weinstein had a casting couch....cuz it saw lots of use. It worked. There is a reason why this chick has internal injuries...because the women this Daughters singer dates don't want to be lonely. I need a better reason to feel sympathy.



Well, that’s entirely it right there, you don’t get the psychological aspects of it. 

May I say, though, it might be a good idea to try to understand it? I have no doubt you have a shitload of anger pointed towards your ex for that happening, I know I certainly would. I’d also imagine the weight of that anger is not a light load and that shit ain’t healthy to carry for a long time. 

Really though, I don’t think it’s a stretch to see how your anger as a result of this occurring in your life is lending itself to the inability to understand the psychological aspects of it. Much in the same way that the psychological affects of abuse don’t allow the abused to see how it affecting them down the road….and they get into situations like the one with this singer. 

I’m hesitant to even comment on your situation, but the description of your ex sounds like an abuser’s playground; weak-willed and can’t be alone. I wouldn’t be surprised if she experienced some abuse in her life that led her to finding him and him being able to pull the wool over her eyes. 

If this is something that’s still causing you pain, man, well, do something about it. Of course there’s a part of you that will never heal from that, but there are support groups out there for people in your very shoes just so it doesn’t destroy them. If you feel you are chained to this pain for life, well, you’re experiencing the psychological effects of a horrific event. That’s no different than the pain experienced by the abused and how it gets carried through life until it’s addressed.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 12, 2021)

Any time someone goes "I don't understand how you could just _let a thing happen_", I just think it's pretty straightforward that a lot of people are wired to avoid unknowns and confrontations - and especially unknown confrontations. I never find it surprising when someone prefers the evil they know, so to speak. I think your outlook is reasonable, but people are often not reasonable, and reasonable doesn't always mean right or fair or complete.


----------



## mmr007 (Dec 12, 2021)

I don't think its fair to say that the entirety of of the "problem" is that I have a mental outlook that does not understand the psychology of mental/physical/sexual abuse. I don't think the problem is my obligation to have a greater level of understanding. Again, even on this forum which is geared towards guitars and music and whatnot, there is a political thread section where we regularly make fun of Qanon believers. I just feel that we need to be intellectually consistent and if we have sympathy for someone who doesn't want to be away from her rapist, why is it ok to make fun of Qanon believers? Somebody is taking advantage of them and manipulating them just like any cult leader or abusive parent.

My post was not intended to rub salt in her wound but I'll be frank...I think a collective intervention is warranted. We regularly intervene with people who surrender their life savings to con artists (not in a one time scam but a long slow scam) or other times when someone acts in a way that is harmful to themselves. I think it is still warranted to ask why this woman took so long to leave this type of "relationship" There are unhealthy relationships but dating a rapist is something else. I think it is the degree of recognition that this was soooo wrong that makes me question why it was ever ok to begin with because loneliness was not an option


----------



## RevDrucifer (Dec 12, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> I don't think its fair to say that the entirety of of the "problem" is that I have a mental outlook that does not understand the psychology of mental/physical/sexual abuse. I don't think the problem is my obligation to have a greater level of understanding. Again, even on this forum which is geared towards guitars and music and whatnot, there is a political thread section where we regularly make fun of Qanon believers. I just feel that we need to be intellectually consistent and if we have sympathy for someone who doesn't want to be away from her rapist, why is it ok to make fun of Qanon believers? Somebody is taking advantage of them and manipulating them just like any cult leader or abusive parent.
> 
> My post was not intended to rub salt in her wound but I'll be frank...I think a collective intervention is warranted. We regularly intervene with people who surrender their life savings to con artists (not in a one time scam but a long slow scam) or other times when someone acts in a way that is harmful to themselves. I think it is still warranted to ask why this woman took so long to leave this type of "relationship" There are unhealthy relationships but dating a rapist is something else. I think it is the degree of recognition that this was soooo wrong that makes me question why it was ever ok to begin with because loneliness was not an option



How do you have a collective intervention in a world where people have been told to report rape and abuse their entire lives? 

Sure, you can tell everyone and anyone “Don’t date a rapist.”, but if your wires are crossed, it won’t mean shit. For some it’s like telling an alcoholic not to drink. Some people are addicted to drama and chaos, addicted to either the attention they get as a result or addicted to the adrenaline it gives them to always be in a fight, or always be making up. 

I had an ex who thought fighting and making up was a way to keep the spark alive in a relationship. I thought the more fighting, the less the spark would glow and that relationship didn’t the longest. I’m friends with her now and she realizes how absurd that is now, but that’s all she knew back then. 

You can’t really cover that situation with one blanket and if you could, I think it’s generally covered by warning kids/people about the dangers of talking to strangers, don’t get in the old white van that says Candy Canes on the side, report any uncomfortable touching, etc. 

I was merely suggesting that understanding the psychology behind it more can give you some insight into why it happens, since the psychology behind it IS why it happens. I think it’s safe to say that people inherently know that it’s not a good situation to be dating a rapist, but for whatever reasons, something is preventing them from seeing it when they’re in the situation. It’s not because the rapist is wearing a sign that says “Not A Rapist”, it’s because however the abused is wired doesn’t allow them to recognize it as a negative thing. 

When your self-worth is non-existent, it leaves all kinds of room for the worst kinds of people to pick you up and make you feel something. When you’ve been stripped of all your emotions and left barren of them, sometimes feeling anything is good enough. 

None of that shit can be answered with a surface level explanation. That’s why it takes years of therapy for people to get over abuse, if they can get over it. I know plenty who haven’t been able to.


----------



## mmr007 (Dec 12, 2021)

RevDrucifer said:


> How do you have a collective intervention in a world where people have been told to report rape and abuse their entire lives?
> 
> Sure, you can tell everyone and anyone “Don’t date a rapist.”, but if your wires are crossed, it won’t mean shit. For some it’s like telling an alcoholic not to drink. Some people are addicted to drama and chaos, addicted to either the attention they get as a result or addicted to the adrenaline it gives them to always be in a fight, or always be making up.
> 
> ...



Every point you make is valid and I agree. Couple things though...a collective intervention is a national dialog. Maybe we had one but apparently it didn't stick. The #metoo# movement has been very vocal about telling men it's never ok to assault a woman...now start telling women it's never ok to be assaulted. Don't just tell men not to do a bad thing because bad people don't listen. But tell women not to let a bad thing happen to them....obviously it is more complicated than "telling" but hopefully you get my point. Keep having the national dialog. 

Anyway, as I said I agree but beyond that I fear we will just talk past each other because I know there is a reason certain people allow themselves to be abused to which as callous as it sounds...I am running out of sympathy for adults who allow someone of the opposite sex to abuse them. I never want to see a person hurt but she's an adult. Not a puppy. She has some agency and I want to see her and others like her use it. Am I being unreasonable? If I am then we are admitting that far too many women have no choice but to be victims their whole lives and I don't believe that.


----------



## TedEH (Dec 13, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> now start telling women it's never ok to be assaulted.


I was with you up until this part. This is just a flat-out bad take. Nobody thinks it's _ok to be assaulted_. That's the most surface-level take of why anyone might respond to an assault in a counter-intuitive way.



mmr007 said:


> there is a political thread section where we regularly make fun of Qanon believers.





mmr007 said:


> why is it ok to make fun of Qanon believers?


That's not a this-forum thing. That's a the-whole-world thing, because Qanon is cartoonishly worthy of being made fun of. Like it's off-the-wall batshit crazy to believe any of that. I won't say there's zero correlation between conspiracy theory beliefs and the psychology of abuse victims, but if there is any, I suspect it's not the connection you think it is.



mmr007 said:


> Am I being unreasonable?


Yeah, mostly.



mmr007 said:


> If I am then we are admitting that far too many women have no choice but to be victims their whole lives


Many people would probably say exactly that. I've heard plenty of people say exactly that. I mean, ask anyone who thinks of themselves as a victim of anything if they thought they had a choice in the matter. If they had a choice, they wouldn't _be_ a victim, would they?


----------



## JimF (Dec 14, 2021)

mmr007 said:


> (_Several things about being in abusive relationships)_



(Not having a rant at you in any way mate, this is all intended as good natured discussion) 
Often things aren't as clear cut as "Person realises they are in an abusive relationship, and decides to leave". I doubt that any victims of abusive relationships ever think that leaving is an option.

If we remove "fearing the repercussions of leaving" from the equation, there is much more going on.

These victims of abuse have been manipulated massively. They aren't like Cinderella, locked away by evil stepsisters. Their abusers will be kind and loving one day, then callous and violent the next. The abuser will have started out affectionate and loving, or else the victim would have never engaged in the relationship. Someone here (or in the article below) referred to "lovebombing", where the abused party is exposed to a flood of affection, praise, declarations of love, great sex, gifts, etc. The person has never experienced anything like this. The abuser, consciously or not, has selected someone who is susceptible to this treatment. Low self esteem can cause people to act in ways that can be hard to comprehend if you are not that way inclined. 

Then, when one day, the abusive behaviour starts: the first physical strike, the first rape, the victim explains it away as being their fault. The behaviour is so incongruous to their partners usual actions that low self esteem suggests it MUST be something they did to cause it. They think perhaps she deserved to be hit because she was nagging. They think perhaps she should have said yes to sex because he's her boyfriend, because he was so horny, because a good girlfriend doesn't turn their man down, and so on and so forth. Is the victim wondering if she actually was raped? Is she playing down how much she was coerced? Maybe a lot of the abuse was realised after the fact.

Not all of this is a conscious decision. Some of it will be automatic thoughts reinforced by years of low self esteem.

These instances of abuse aren't observed in a vaccum, the victim views these events within the context of what they feel is a normal relationship. And if they've been together 365 days and they were only abusive for 1 evening, that's not even 0.5%. The victim writes it off. Blames themselves.

This repeats. Gets to a point where the victim is so manipulated that the subtle coercion is almost prepping them for next time the abuse happens. By the time they realised how deep in the shit they are, they often feel too scared to escape and are living day to day, second guessing their partner and trying to make it to the next sunrise safely.


The extended statement from Lingua Ignota adds a lot of context: (Scroll down to the "comprehensive statement")
Lingua Ignota Accuses Daughters' Alexis Marshall of Sexual Abuse (loudwire.com)

The following passage (if you don't have time to read the link) is particularly relevant:



Lingua Ignota said:


> I believe the most prescient question people will have for me is: why did I stay through this mistreatment? There are a thousand reasons. Shame, fear, self-doubt, embarrassment, love. My own traumatic history dictates that I am susceptible to more predatory and abusive behavior – chaos is familiar to me. I believed it was my fault, and that I could fix it. I was *told* it was my fault, that I was toxic and the bad guy. I had invested so much, emotionally, physically, financially. I received intermittent rewards and crumbs of hope. There were many beautiful, mundane moments and times where we really enjoyed each other and I felt happy, and they were always taken away from me. I believed if I just worked harder I could get him to love me and treat me well consistently. I believed I did not deserve better, because I was the Other Woman, because I had already endured abuse, because it wasn’t as bad as physical battering, even though this relationship did more physical harm to me than any of my previous ones.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 14, 2021)

I was abused and repressed it for years. Your brain does a lot of mental gymnastics when you are in a state of survival. And looking back, choices made were not always the right ones when you view it from the outside, but in the middle of that chaos it is hard to know up from down.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 14, 2021)

Did someone really just compare making fun of Q believers to having sympathy for sexual/mental abuse victims? 
Holy. Shit. 
Please just STFU forever unless its to talk to a therapist.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Dec 14, 2021)

GunpointMetal said:


> Did someone really just compare making fun of Q believers to having sympathy for sexual/mental abuse victims?
> Holy. Shit.
> Please just STFU forever unless its to talk to a therapist.



Well, if you take it face value, yeah, it can come off that way. But telling the dude to “STFU forever” when he was asking what I took as a legitimate question isn’t going to solve anything. He’s literally trying to understand it. You may not enjoy the wording of his question or how it was posed, but at least he admits he doesn’t understand it and wants to. 

Not sure if you read all his posts or not, but I can certainly see why the dude has questions regarding it. I’d rather lend an ear to someone in his position than tell him to fuck off, but you do you.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Dec 14, 2021)

RevDrucifer said:


> Well, if you take it face value, yeah, it can come off that way. But telling the dude to “STFU forever” when he was asking what I took as a legitimate question isn’t going to solve anything. He’s literally trying to understand it. You may not enjoy the wording of his question or how it was posed, but at least he admits he doesn’t understand it and wants to.
> 
> Not sure if you read all his posts or not, but I can certainly see why the dude has questions regarding it. I’d rather lend an ear to someone in his position than tell him to fuck off, but you do you.


You're probably, right, I should have just said, please talk to a therapist. It was just so unbelievably asshat-ish I over-reacted. But seriously, that's like a huge, gigantic, practically insane argument to make I have a hard time believing that was a legitimate thought from someone with reasonable spelling ability.


----------



## ScottThunes1960 (Dec 15, 2021)

edit: nvm


----------



## RevDrucifer (Dec 15, 2021)

GunpointMetal said:


> You're probably, right, I should have just said, please talk to a therapist. It was just so unbelievably asshat-ish I over-reacted. But seriously, that's like a huge, gigantic, practically insane argument to make I have a hard time believing that was a legitimate thought from someone with reasonable spelling ability.



Like I said in one of my replies, I have little doubt that his own experience is behind his line of questioning and in his place, like others have said, I would have wound up in jail for murder. 

Just goes to show how far-reaching abuse can be, it doesn’t just fuck up one person but everyone surrounding the abused gets to carry some of the weight as well.


----------



## ArtDecade (Dec 15, 2021)

ScottThunes1960 said:


> edit: nvm



Always the safest post to make in a thread like this. LOL.


----------



## ScottThunes1960 (Dec 16, 2021)

ArtDecade said:


> Always the safest post to make in a thread like this. LOL.



I realized nearly too late that my summary of the turns this thread took would likely not be taken in the same jovial spirit it was offered.


----------

