Jonathan King Sings

May 9, 2008 10:32 AM

Jonathan "King of Hits" King is a former pop impresario now best known for his conviction and imprisonment for having sex with teenage boys. He has turned his experiences into a satirical musical, Vile Pervert [NSFW], and released the film for free online. In one number, adopting the persona of Oscar Wilde, King asserts that "there's nothing wrong with buggering boys".
posted by jack_mo (71 comments total)

See here and here... I predict a similar outcome with this creepy FPP.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:55 AM on May 9

does he know this guy?
posted by TrialByMedia at 10:56 AM on May 9

AW JINX!
posted by TrialByMedia at 10:57 AM on May 9

If you don't have encyclopediac, instant recall of pedophile-related posts, then what *do* you have?

And this post insults the memory of Oscar Wilde.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:00 AM on May 9 [2 favorites]

what
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 11:00 AM on May 9

man, I don't feel comfortable clicking on ANY of that while I'm at work.
posted by shmegegge at 11:09 AM on May 9

I think the VILE PERVERT link needs an NSFW tag since the first sequence ends with King exposing himself full-frontally to camera.
posted by unSane at 11:10 AM on May 9

Look, I gave it a chance, clicked all the way through to the third link, but after the report in the Guardian....

He told the boys that it was fine if they wanted to masturbate. And then things would progress from there. Some of the boys reported that his whole body would start to shake as he sat next to them in the Rolls-Royce. And then he "went for it", in the words of one victim. None of the boys say that he forced himself on to them. They all say they just sat there, awed into submission by his celebrity.


...my feeling is that the guy's just a wealthy pedo with penchant for misusing his celebrity status to do wrong upon others/boys.

Oscar Wilde? Hardly. Doesn't he mean Michael Jackson?
posted by humannaire at 11:11 AM on May 9

even worse than manbabies
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:11 AM on May 9

For some reason the Spice Girls never covered one of his songs.
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on May 9

See also.
posted by TedW at 11:17 AM on May 9

Um, I love Oscar Wilde's work, LOVE it.

To humannaire and KokuRyu:

But the fact is, Oscar Wilde was a known cohort and believer in the philosophy of the Uranians, a group of pederastic poets at the time.

It is not "insulting" to his memory to say as much when he would have told you his love for male youths outright. In fact, I was recently finishing The Great War and Modern Memory, in which a whole chapter is devoted to the homosexual and pederastic tropes and practices of soldiers, poets (and often one in the same) of the time leading up to The Great War and during. It was absolutely not uncommon for men at the time to have crushes (often chaste, often not) toward younger males in their battalions, school classes, church, or other groups. Innocent boyhood at the time was a common object of affection and sexual desire, if not a main trope throughout Great War literature and many men's daily practices. By WWII this had largely changed, with the comradeship of soldiers sanitized of the first war's more physical manifestations of homosexual and pederastic desire.

Do not construe this to mean that homosexuality and pederasty are one in the same. But it is the case that at other points in history than now, pederasty (and much behavior that we now label as pedophillic) has been practiced by people we'd rather glorify.

Great art does not necessarily come from great ethical living practices. Being a fan of someone's work does not mean one should automatically defend their memory against an unseemly practice (such as pederasty) they were known to have enjoyed.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 11:38 AM on May 9 [2 favorites]

To keep it short, but fair. It's okay if truly amazingly powerful people like Ghandi sleep with young girls and give them enemas. But, if your not all that, chances are your causing some real damage getting them there. Jonathan King seems like the later category.

Not that other children don't cause plenty of damage themselves, but we don't view them as culpable for their actions. Otoh, I'd laugh if they crucify some guy for being a high school bully. (end ramble)
posted by jeffburdges at 11:39 AM on May 9

The family moved to Surrey when he was very young and he spent most of his early life near Dorking.

and that explains that.
posted by quonsar at 11:41 AM on May 9 [7 favorites]

I think the VILE PERVERT link needs an NSFW tag since the first sequence ends with King exposing himself full-frontally to camera.

Yep, sorry - I had a 'NSFW' in originally, but changed the wording and forgot to put it back. Have emailed the mods and asked that they add a note after that link.
posted by jack_mo at 11:47 AM on May 9

whimsicalnymph: one in the same

one AND the same.
posted by quonsar at 11:55 AM on May 9 [3 favorites]

telstar wins (via TedW's link) : Wasn't the guy who started the boy scouts also a pedophile? lol
posted by jeffburdges at 11:58 AM on May 9

Really fascinating FPP, especially the first Guardian article. Long, but worth the read. What an interesting character--so charismatic, yet rather ridiculous and narcissistic in an almost cartoonish way. I (perhaps unfortunately) came out of it liking him.
posted by nonmerci at 12:10 PM on May 9

It's okay if truly amazingly powerful people like Ghandi sleep with young girls and give them enemas.

Um, I don't think that's OK. Would you be OK if Bush, Cheney or other powerful people of today were doing that?

Perhaps what you mean to say is, "Ghandi's other accomplishments overshadow some of his more distasteful and lesser-known habits."
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:17 PM on May 9

I just wish he'd shut up, like his 'protest' by wearing pink pajamas in prison... and singing 'Una Paloma Blanca' is not the same as writing 'The Ballard of Reading Jail'
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:23 PM on May 9

Gaol, if you please.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:27 PM on May 9

Sorry, such was my outrage it turned me temporarily American.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:29 PM on May 9 [3 favorites]

I think this guy and Lou Perlman went to creep school together.
posted by designbot at 12:35 PM on May 9

Metafilter: Great art does not necessarily come from great ethical living practices.
posted by rdone at 12:55 PM on May 9

Interesting articles. I remember seeing a sort of promo film of young, English heartthrobs from the early 60's that was very clearly somebody's collection of beautiful boys. I'm fairly certain now that it was a Larry Parnes production. It stuck in my mind because the scene in A Hard Day's Night where George accidentally wanders into the office of the teen marketing creep had the same sort of cheesy, predatory vibe (yet funnier) as the heartthob film...

At any rate, it does seem like this sort of thing was run of the mill back then in arty, musical, and trend setting scenes both here and in England. It certainly happened with young girls all the time, and it's not surprising that it would happen with boys as well.
posted by oneirodynia at 1:04 PM on May 9

The Ballard of Reading Jail
They locked up poor old J.G.?!!1! groan
posted by Abiezer at 1:08 PM on May 9

... at other points in history than now, pederasty (and much behavior that we now label as pedophillic) has been practiced by people we'd rather glorify. ... Great art does not necessarily come from great ethical living practices. Being a fan of someone's work does not mean one should automatically defend their memory against an unseemly practice (such as pederasty) they were known to have enjoyed.

Arguably, these practices were neither unseemly nor unethical at the time.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:14 PM on May 9

ghandi gave young girls enemas? What? Cite?
posted by Brainy at 1:32 PM on May 9

ghandi gave young girls enemas? What? Cite?

i've been asking for this cite for almost as long as the idea's been in circulation. still haven't gotten one, so good luck with that. i suspect it's a product of some obscure post-modern studies essay written by some professed liar in the interest of a greater truth. but if someone ever offers a half-credible cite, then i suppose i'll stand corrected.

as someone with a young son whom i would gladly kill anyone to protect, fuck this guy.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:43 PM on May 9 [1 favorite]

There's a Ghandi/Girls/Enemas cite here, FWIW. From 'Commentary' magazine, 1983.
posted by unSane at 1:48 PM on May 9

Sometimes I wish we just Spontaneously Regenerated and were done with it.
posted by Dizzy at 1:52 PM on May 9

like i said, i need a half-credible cite. a neocon op/ed rag like "commentary" doesn't even come close to meeting my standards for credibility.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:53 PM on May 9

Well it's certainly true that Gandhi liked enemas, talked about them constantly and recommended them to people he met, and slept naked with his niece. That's all in Lapierre & Collins' FREEDOM AT MIDNIGHT. Him administering them to others doesn't seem like a massive stretch.
posted by unSane at 1:59 PM on May 9

I think the closest you'll get to a bona fide cite is here. The story seems to have emerged in a series of highly critical articles in the Bombay Post in 1942. The articles were clearly aimed at discrediting Gandhi, but it doesn't sound like they were roundly denied.
posted by unSane at 2:04 PM on May 9

"The strongest words, however, have come from Richard Grenier, film critic for Commentary'. Not satisfied with simply attacking the movie and the man, Grenier in a March article for the magazine went on to vilify all of India, all of Hinduism, and then to flail at a target closer to home, and close to the hearts of his fellow neoconservatives: American liberals. [...]

Grenier's review wasn't a critique so much as it was an epileptic seizure. The virulence of Richard Grenier's attack on the film and even the people of India seemed to know no bounds.

What's all this stuff about non-violence ?
"Hindus, " says Grenier, "are among the most bestially violent people on the globe."

What's all this stuff about Gandhi as a saint ?
He "was a man of the most extreme autocratic temperament, tyrannical, unyielding, even regarding things he knew nothing about, totally intolerant of all opinions but his own."
He "retained an obvious obsession with excreta." He dwelled in a "permanent state of semen anxiety."

"Gandhi", says Grenier, "believed in a religion whose ideas I find somewhat repugnant." Grenier continues at this moderate pitch for his entire review.

It is tempting to perform a point-by-point exegesis of the distortions, digresssions, and deletions that characterize this review, but a few examples will have to suffice. " [Jason DeParle, Washington Monthly, 1983]

posted by peacay at 2:15 PM on May 9 [1 favorite]

Thank you for being the first person in the thread to finally spell his name correctly, unsane. I was going to start shooting.
posted by blacklite at 2:18 PM on May 9 [1 favorite]

Gandhi wasn't a pederast as far as I know.
posted by Artw at 2:34 PM on May 9

But he did have a foreign-sounding middle name...
posted by athenian at 3:30 PM on May 9

I've seen pictures of him dressed funny on the internets.
posted by Artw at 3:38 PM on May 9

Too bad this thread has turned into an enema-centric Gandhi-related derail.
posted by nonmerci at 4:36 PM on May 9

blacklite, it is Gandhi.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:03 PM on May 9

I (perhaps unfortunately) came out of it liking him.

I quite like him as well. I can't help but think he was sent to prison for the crime of inflicting Johnny Reggae on a generation. A year or two in prison for that is a fitting punishment. For consensual mutual masturbation with some teenage boys thirty years ago though -- I thought it was way over the top.

as someone with a young son whom i would gladly kill anyone to protect, fuck this guy.

Does something happen to people when they have kids that makes them forget what it was like when they were a teenager? Because when *I* was a teenager, several men offered me inducements to have sex. Some offered money, others offered drugs, etc. etc. I always turned them down -- because I didn't want to have sex with old men. But if I'd agreed to give an old man a hand job or let him suck me off, it would have been because I wanted to. The idea that I needed anybody's protection -- then or now -- to turn down something that I didn't want, or conversely, to stop me from wanting something that I did want, has always struck me as being faintly ludicrous.

No doubt there'll be a string of people along shortly who'll insist that I wasn't competent to make decisions at that age -- but I don't feel any more competent now than I did then. If anything, I probably had a much clearer idea about what I wanted when I was a teenager than I do in my fifties. And yeah, I sometimes made poor decisions, but I'm not sure when the cut-off point for that ends -- or if it ever does.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:41 PM on May 9 [1 favorite]

No doubt there'll be a string of people along shortly who'll insist that I wasn't competent to make decisions at that age -- but I don't feel any more competent now than I did then.

At the age of thirty-six, I feel a lot more competent now than I did then, that's for sure. If I could give my teenage self advice, I would say:

"Girls have no idea what sex is or what it's like, so take it easy for a while. They have no idea what they're getting in to, and neither do you. Be a gentleman. But always try to score a goodnight kiss."

I suppose I would give the same advice to some creepy old guy wanting to score with a teenage boy, but what teenage boy wants to engage in a necking session with Jonathon King? The stubble alone would be more traumatizing than a handjob.
posted by KokuRyu at 5:53 PM on May 9

but what teenage boy wants to engage in a necking session with Jonathon King?

You'd be astonished.

And yeah.. as with previous threads on similar subjects, there is an undercurrent of homophobia here that is somewhat offputting.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:54 PM on May 9

Thought this was interesting:

that the great difference between the British and American pop industries is this: the American impresarios are traditionally driven by money, while their British counterparts were historically driven by gay sex, usually with younger boys - and that British pop was conceived as a canvas upon which older gay svengalis could paint their sexual fantasies, knowing their tastes would be shared by the teenage girls who bought the records.

I guess Lou Pearlman was following in this old-world tradition, but he was only ever charged with fraud-related offences.
posted by goo at 1:14 AM on May 10

And yeah.. as with previous threads on similar subjects, there is an undercurrent of homophobia here that is somewhat offputting.

As in wider society, of course - people like King are hideous pederasts, people like Bill Wyman are old rogues.

"Girls have no idea what sex is or what it's like, so take it easy for a while. They have no idea what they're getting in to, and neither do you. Be a gentleman. But always try to score a goodnight kiss."

When did you grow up? That sounds nothing like the teenagers, male or female, when I was young - the majority knew exactly what they were getting into, were terribly keen to get into it, and the year of pretty rubbish 'practice sex' from 13 or 14 (not with 30-something pop impressarios, obviously) proved a great set up for good sex in the later teenage years and after.
posted by jack_mo at 3:39 AM on May 10

Also, the topic of Gandhi and enemas was not one I expected to arise from this post!
posted by jack_mo at 3:41 AM on May 10

I was convinced this guy was criminal scum, then I read in the Ronson article, "Would it be right to prosecute Mick Jagger for having sex with a 15-year-old girl thirty years ago?" And the article answered "Of course not!" So this is really about homophobia, right? I read both parts of the article. The writer was having a tough time answering the question, "Why did these guys come back after the first time?" One tells him, "I was fifteen, full of hormones, he gave me records, it wasn't that big of a deal." Until, years later, the guy says he realizes the experience made him a divided person, a person with things to be hidden. Other boys/now men gave different responses. One witness, on the stand, appeared to be a lunatic. But all consented, and all were fifteen or over (the fourteen-year-old thing never was established). So I came away with the notion that what the guy did was wrong. But I can't see how, precisely, it is different from Mick Jagger and the girl. If one isn't criminal, then neither are. King is not criminal scum, but he and Jagger are both definitely scum. And both celebrate it.
posted by CCBC at 3:57 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

Until, years later, the guy says he realizes the experience made him a divided person, a person with things to be hidden.

I hate this kind of post-facto rationalization bollocks. "My life is shit. What's the cause? It has nothing to do with the thirty years of drinking and drugging I've engaged in since, so it must be because I willingly and repeatedly let a rich man bugger me thirty years ago. Though he paid me well at the time, both financially and in life experiences, he obviously deserves to go on paying for the rest of his life."

Funny how we never hear about huge queues of people lining up to testify against poor people with no assets or no institutional affiliations that can pay damages in these cases.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:29 AM on May 10 [1 favorite]

"Would it be right to prosecute Mick Jagger for having sex with a 15-year-old girl thirty years ago?" And the article answered "Of course not!" So this is really about homophobia, right?

Exactly. I think the reason for it is pretty simple: because heterosexuality is the norm, then therefore that's okay. Clearly no boy would want to have sex with another man. Except, y'know, the ones that do.

I think a lot of men forget what being a teenager is like. Nature quite literally grabs you by the dick and leads you around for a few years, until you learn to deal with it. Maybe it's a byproduct of growing up in very liberal neighborhoods in a very liberal city in a very liberal country, but during my teen years... well, let's just say I knew a lot of boys who were quite alright with a little fooling around. Why? Because you have a boner, and it takes a while to get girls to go down on you.

Further, this all gets considered so very wrong because in the back of their heads a surprising number of people--even otherwise relatively tolerant people--seem to have two things bubbling away in the backs of their minds:

1) Well, something made you gay/You can be made gay by having sex with men.
2) One gay sex act = gay for life (see above point)

Here's the thing: most teenage boys would quite happily fuck a cactus if it would get them off. Does that make it right when people abuse their power to get them naked? Obviously and emphatically not. But we always see in these situations this undercurrent of disgust when it's men and teenage boys that we don't see when it's men and teenage girls.

"I was fifteen, full of hormones, he gave me records, it wasn't that big of a deal." Until, years later, the guy says he realizes the experience made him a divided person, a person with things to be hidden.

That struck me as absolutely a byproduct of homophobia. If there were nothing wrong with gay sex (obviously there isn't; talking about societal perception here), he would have had nothing to hide, and therefore wouldn't be a 'divided person'. Strikes me the same as the dichotomy (which no longer exists) of a gay person wanting to work for CSIS: he couldn't tell CSIS he was gay, because they'd reject him thinking he could be blackmailed. But not telling them meant that he actually could be blackmailed. Same kind of idea.. if there were no externally-imposed shame in having gay sex, this man (this specific man, who said that specific thing) would probably be just fine, because he wouldn't have had to hide anything. Because you can bet your sweet bippy if (presuming he's straight or mostly so) that if it were some older woman, he'd have been round to his mates five minutes later saying "You will never believe who I just had it off with."

Funny how we never hear about huge queues of people lining up to testify against poor people with no assets or no institutional affiliations that can pay damages in these cases.


That jumped out at you too, eh?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:31 AM on May 10 [2 favorites]

Exactly. I think the reason for it is pretty simple: because heterosexuality is the norm, then therefore that's okay. Clearly no boy would want to have sex with another man. Except, y'know, the ones that do.

This is retarded, dishonest bullshit.

If Mick Jagger laid a finger on my 15 year old daughter (or my 15 year old son) I'd feed him his own balls if I ever suspected it. If an 18 year old high school classmate (boy or girl) did the same thing, I'd have a stern conversation with him/her, but I wouldn't press charges (and I probably wouldn't try to force them to end the relationship, if it didn't seem to be t exploitative).

It's not about homophobia with me. I know what sexual abuse can do to a person, and for every self-hating victim who's ostensibly made peace with their own sexual abuse and can now say without a trace of misgiving that when they were 15, they didn't mind what happened to them, there are two or three other victims whose lives turned to shit because they could never make peace with what was done to them--all for the fleeting sexual gratification of a fucking adult--leading to drug abuse or even suicide--so fuck you for trying to play the homophobia card over an issue that has nothing to do with homophobia.

And I hate Oscar Wilde, BTW. I think he was nothing more than a self-important sociopath whose charismatic personality led a great number of people to mistake him for a genius.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:16 PM on May 10

After millions of years of evolution, human beings become sexually mature at about the age of 13 or so. All the hand-wringing and moralizing of various cultural constructs fails to recognize this irrevocable truth, which is why attempts at insisting on abstinence amongst adolescents are always doomed to failure. These artificial age restrictions reflect the wishfull thinking of those who would contol behaviour for their own ends, not human nature.

The double standard of modern society when confronted with this plain truth in a homosexual context merely reveals how inherently unjust and unworkable current attitudes toward human sexuality really are.

A 14 year old girl and girl 15 year old boy having sex? Unwise, but understandable, some parts of our society claim. But change the age of the male to 18, or 17, in some jurisdictions and it suddenly becomes a crime.

Now , adjust the genders to two males in any of these contexts. Ewww becomes the common reaction. But truly the only real difference rests in the mind of the observer, and reveals much about how indoctrinated humans really are by their respective society's strictures about what is "normal".
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 1:59 PM on May 10

Now , adjust the genders to two males in any of these contexts. Ewww becomes the common reaction.

Not really. Physical sexual maturation is not identical with psychological maturation. Not by a long shot. Psychological maturation, except in the case of those whose further development is permanently arrested by some form of developmental trauma (like, for instance, being subjected to sexual abuse) is a process that continues throughout a person's entire life.

The issue is when, say, a 38 year-old, fully-mature male or female uses his or her more psychologically-sophisticated understanding of human sexuality to manipulate or otherwise exploit a still relatively psychologically immature human being into sexual behavior.

Making hollowed-out, overly-general and lazy assertions about humans "indoctrinated... by... society's strictures" is the tell-tale mark of BS artistry (not to say you aren't perhaps legitimately high on the particularly potent fumes of that kind of BS yourself). Pederasty is repugnant because the more sexually mature party engaged in these behaviors is (or at least should be) sophisticated enough to know that encouraging a significantly younger, psychologically immature person to engage in sexual acts with them when they may not be psychologically mature enough to handle those experiences could significantly harm them.

There are plenty of data points to support this--plenty of 15 year-old sexually abused kids who aren't psychologically ready for such experiences, and do in fact engage in self-destructive behavioral patterns directly as a result of having had them, even to the point of suicide. Whether you want to attribute this effect to what you so glibly dismiss as "social indoctrination" or not, the effect is real, and a socially-responsible adult has no right taking such chances with the life of a significantly less mature human being who might not appreciate at the time how profoundly they might eventually be impacted by their experiences. It's not nearly as simple as the "Ewwww" factor, and the insensitivity of that remark and the thinking behind it is repugnant in its own way.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:06 PM on May 10

After I wrote the above I felt I was wrong. Here's why. For one, I don't like to call names ("pedo"). Secondly, I do remember being a sexually-charged person as a teenager. It's a difficult time.

Thirdly, and finally, it really is the responsibility of parents and the like to explain to young men that pervy older men exist and how to avoid being put in or finding one's self in an undesirably sexual situation.

Trouble is, many young men are caught unawares for one reason or another. (No parents, class distinctions, upbringing failing to acknowledge reality, etc.)

This is not to say that many young men (and women) would and do find and seek out such situations. That's potentially a different story. Of that, I am without argument.

King did not force himself on any of these young men, they were (apparently) not sexually immature. And who knows how many actually enjoyed the experience. Most likely a number of those who did not forward their complaint.

What more, no doubt there are still others who did not come forward for personal reasons or else because it was not a big deal.

Older woman made a number of approaches to *me* as soon as I turned 14. It wasn't until I was 16 that I got it all together and got it right. But I sure would think it odd if my parents were upset or angered at these adult women who were part of my adulthood becoming.

However, while I retract what I earlier said about King, and even the Michael Jackson comment (entirely different situation) I stand by what I said about King and Oscar Wilde.

Oscar Wilde was a great artist, his writing stirring souls even now into a third century.

But JK? At this point, I'll leave it at time will tell.
posted by humannaire at 8:02 PM on May 10

There are plenty of data points to support this--plenty of 15 year-old sexually abused kids who aren't psychologically ready for such experiences, and do in fact engage in self-destructive behavioral patterns directly as a result of having had them, even to the point of suicide

I'd be extremely interested to see a cite that demonstrated that fifteen year old kids who willingly engaged in repeated acts of consensual sex with partners over the age of 16 are somehow going around killing themselves as a consequence. If I believed that was true, I'd absolutely change my position. However, my experiences of talking to victims of sexual abuse has been that it's the sense of powerlessness and lack of control that causes the experiences that you describe -- not engagement on one's own terms with an older partner.

The issue is when, say, a 38 year-old, fully-mature male or female uses his or her more psychologically-sophisticated understanding of human sexuality to manipulate or otherwise exploit a still relatively psychologically immature human being into sexual behavior.

Meh. Adults are persuaded to engage in sexual behaviour by power and status inequities all the time. Provided there's no coercion involved, we don't consider that abuse. In most of the world, it's regarded as how it's supposed to be. You get yourself a 'good catch', someone who can provide for you materially, or help you advance in your career.

Aside from the fact that these teenagers were just below the somewhat arbitrary cut-off point of sixteen, how is this any different to that?

Note, I'm not saying that what King did wasn't wrong, nor that it shouldn't be a crime. Simply that as crimes go, it's neither very big, nor very important and I'm guessing that had he not been a celebrity, this case would never have seen the inside of a court room.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:02 AM on May 11

This is retarded, dishonest bullshit.

No, it's really not. But thank you for the value judgement, it warms the cockles of my heart, it really does.


It's not about homophobia with me.

For you, maybe. For the vast majority of the rest of the world, it's a different matter. Thanks for playing.

and for every self-hating victim who's ostensibly made peace with their own sexual abuse

One doesn't have to hate oneself to come to peace with things. You're full of a lot of vitriol here.

so fuck you for trying to play the homophobia card over an issue that has nothing to do with homophobia.


You make this statement, but then don't back it up. Please take a look at the vast gulf of difference in societal reaction to older man/younger man vs older man/younger woman, and especially the reaction--around here, even--to older woman/younger man, and tell me again that homophobia has nothing to do with how the situation is perceived.

And I hate Oscar Wilde, BTW. I think he was nothing more than a self-important sociopath whose charismatic personality led a great number of people to mistake him for a genius.


Which pretty much sums up precisely why your opinion should be completely discounted. Wilde is widely regarded as a genius because, well, he was. Perhaps not quite on the level of Shakespeare--whom, I am sure, you think is a puffed-up wanker who is only regarded as a genius because he too was a charmer--but still one of the giants of western literature.

I think you have some rage issues that need to be worked out. I suggest therapy.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:04 AM on May 11

If Mick Jagger laid a finger on my 15 year old daughter (or my 15 year old son) I'd feed him his own balls if I ever suspected it.

AH HA HA HA ! Right, tough guy! I've met Mick Jagger, and his body guards would stomp your arrogant ass into the ground.

Now ... who else can we think of who also harbored delusions of grandeur, violent compulsions and a unreasoning fear of homosexuality?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 2:07 PM on May 11

AH HA HA HA ! Right, tough guy! I've met Mick Jagger, and his body guards would stomp your arrogant ass into the ground.

Not if my friends in the Hell's Angels got to him first.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:51 PM on May 11

harbored delusions of grandeur, violent compulsions and a unreasoning fear of homosexuality?

Keep yammering away, PareidoliaticBoy, without actually bothering to read my comments. I don't care if it's an older boy, girl, martian or robot. I will protect my child from anyone who tries to harm him, and I have that right as a parent and human being. And if you'd like to keep identifying homosexuality with pederasty, just so you can play that particularly hateful little liberal guilt card, I think I have a few friends who might take exception.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:01 PM on May 11

Wilde is widely regarded as a genius because, well, he was. Perhaps not quite on the level of Shakespeare--whom, I am sure, you think is a puffed-up wanker who is only regarded as a genius because he too was a charmer--but still one of the giants of western literature.

There are plenty of literary scholars who'd disagree (just as, of course, there are plenty who wouldn't). I've personally always thought Wilde was ridiculously overrated, and that's not nearly as uncommon an opinion in literary circles as you'd like to assert.

One doesn't have to hate oneself to come to peace with things. You're full of a lot of vitriol here.

And one doesn't have to accept sexual molestation as an acceptable form of sexual expression in order to make peace with the fact that one's been molested. That would be like saying you have to learn to make peace with murder in order to make peace with the fact your best friend was murdered (like my wife's best friend, who was murdered for being gay). It's nonsense.

And yes, there's a lot of vitriol, because if you hadn't guessed it, I have some personal experience in this area and have first hand knowledge of just how devastating the psychological impact of sexual abuse can be, over time. No responsible adult has the right to make that kind of choice for a minor, in my opinion (and much of society and the law is on my side, so it's not an uncommon opinion).

Even Nabokov's Humbert Humbert eventually comes to the realization that he's selfishly ruined Dolores Hayes' life, and this is often (not always, but still quite often) how such affairs actually work out in real life. For an adult to take such liberties with the life of a younger person, too immature to grasp the potential psychological harm to themselves, just to satisfy what's ultimately nothing more than a glorified bodily function, is abhorrent to me, and quite rightly not within the bounds of socially acceptable behavior.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:29 PM on May 11

I've read your arrogant and violent comments; and I agree with the assessment that mental counseling might be beneficial in your case. Anger management would be a good place to start.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:36 PM on May 11

I'd be extremely interested to see a cite that demonstrated that fifteen year old kids who willingly engaged in repeated acts of consensual sex with partners over the age of 16 are somehow going around killing themselves as a consequence.

We're not talking about 15 year old kids having sex with kids over the age of 16. We're talking about them being sexually exploited by significantly older adults. Glossing over that distinction is a neat rhetorical trick, but incredibly manipulative and dishonest.

From the article about how he "seduced" (that is, duped) his young victims:

On November 24, 2000, Jonathan King was charged with three child sex offences, dating back 32 years. In the light of the publicity surrounding his arrest, a dozen other boys (now men) came forward to tell police that King had abused them too, during the 1970s and 1980s. Some said he picked them up at the Walton Hop, a disco in Walton-on-Thames run by his friend Deniz Corday. Others said he cruised them in his Rolls-Royce in London. He'd pull over and ask why they were out so late and did they know who he was. He was Jonathan King! Did they want a lift?

He told the boys he was conducting market research into the tastes of young people. Did they like his music? His TV shows? Were they fans of Entertainment USA, his BBC2 series? He asked them to complete a questionnaire - written by him - to list their hobbies in order of preference. Cars? Music? Family and friends? Sex?

"Oh, really?" Jonathan would say to them. "You've only put sex at number two?"

And so they would get talking about sex. He sometimes took them to his Bayswater mews house, with its mirrored toilet and casually scattered photos of naked women on the coffee table. Sometimes, he took them to car parks, or to the forests near the Walton Hop. He showed them photographs of naked Colombian air hostesses and Sam Fox. He could, he said, arrange for them to have sex with the women in the photos. (Sam Fox knew nothing about this).

Sometimes, within the bundle of photographs of naked women he would hand the boys, there would be a picture of himself naked. "Oh!" he'd say, blushing a little. "Sorry. You weren't supposed to see that one of me!" (When the police raided King's house, they say they found 10 overnight bags, each stuffed with his seduction kit - his questionnaires and photos of Sam Fox and photos of himself naked - all packed and ready for when the urge took him to get into his Rolls-Royce and start driving around.)

Yeah, that all sounds perfectly natural and psychologically healthy, and not in the slightest bit exploitative or manipulative to me.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:48 PM on May 11

I've read your arrogant and violent comments; and I agree with the assessment that mental counseling might be beneficial in your case. Anger management would be a good place to start.

Hurf durf.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:49 PM on May 11

I'd be extremely interested to see a cite that demonstrated that fifteen year old kids who willingly engaged in repeated acts of consensual sex with partners over the age of 16 are somehow going around killing themselves as a consequence.

Here's some discussion of the common consequences of sexual abuse and exploitation.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:14 PM on May 11

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

* Correct quote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." - William Shakespeare (Hamlet) This quote comes from Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, line 230 (line accuracy may differ in varying versions of the play). In this case, "protest" means more of "proclaim" than "argue against". Gertrude says it when Hamlet asks her if she's enjoying the play, in which the Player King and Player Queen act out what Hamlet believes was the murder of his father. On one level, she's critiquing the play by saying the Player Queen has too much to say. On another level, knowing what Hamlet is doing, she's critiquing her son by telling him very subtly that he's got it wrong - at least as matters pertain to her. However, she might not for certain have made the connection with her story yet. It is early in the play and what has happened so far really isn't very much like her story at all. She could simply be making an observation on human behaviour in general. Someone who is telling the truth is usually doing so rather plainly and shortly. Someone who is assuring too much is usually lying either to herself or to the audience. Therefore Gertrude implies that she predicts the Player Queen will break her word. Hamlet seems to interpret her statement in this way since in the next line Hamlet says: "O, but she'll keep her word".
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:47 PM on May 11

And one doesn't have to accept sexual molestation as an acceptable form of sexual expression in order to make peace with the fact that one's been molested.

Boy, you just love the strawmen don't you? I never said that.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:42 AM on May 12

And I hate Oscar Wilde, BTW. I think he was nothing more than a self-important sociopath

Hatred is blind, as well as love.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:10 AM on May 12

[a few comments removed - omfg, wtf just happened here? please take shitty name calling outside and go for a nice long walk with it, thank you]
posted by jessamyn at 8:32 AM on May 12

Hatred is blind, as well as love.

I think this may mis-attributed to Oscar Wilde, and is in fact Thomas Fuller.

[Though the sentiment certainly rings true.]
posted by humannaire at 12:47 PM on May 12

[Take it to email, for god's sake.]
posted by cortex at 8:55 PM on May 12

Y'all are all so doomed.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:01 PM on May 12