International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Mick Jagger the Child Rapist (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341915)

William Parcher 2nd February 2020 10:15 AM

Mick Jagger the Child Rapist
 
1 Attachment(s)
Mick Jagger seduced me when I was 15: Actress Rae Dawn Chong reveals how she spent night with Rolling Stone when she was underage and he was married to Bianca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Mail
As she opened the front door, she instantly recognised the swaggering figure before her with his tousled hair and 'rock star grin'. 'You're cute,' said legendary Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger to which she cheekily replied: 'You're cuter.' It was the moment the 33-year-old rock idol met 15-year-old budding actress Rae Dawn Chong, who last night sensationally revealed she and Sir Mick had a two-day fling in 1977 while he was still married to first wife Bianca. Rae Dawn, best-known for her role in the 1985 action film Commando, met the womanising rocker during a trip to New York. After their brief introduction, he whisked her to a recording studio before the pair spent the night together.

In an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday last night, Rae Dawn, now a thrice-divorced, 58-year-old grandmother, said: 'He never asked me how old I was and I never told him. It never came up. I remember thinking he was really cute. He had tousled hair. I thought, 'Oh man, he is beautiful.' 'He said, 'What are you doing right now?' I said, 'Nothing really.' 'He grabbed my hand and we jumped in his limo and went straight to a recording studio. The Stones were there, I was in the background. I remember being in there for hours and hours. 'Then I slept over at his apartment. I knew what I was doing. I was experimenting with Mick. I was having fun.'

Rae Dawn, who says Jagger did not know her age, recalls waking to find Jagger's bandmate Keith Richards staring at the pair...

...Sitting down with The Mail on Sunday last night in a hotel overlooking the bright light's of LA's infamous Sunset Strip, the B-list actress insisted Jagger should not be vilified because their fling took place 'in a different era' to today's #MeToo culture.

She says she is only speaking out to 'own' the story after accidentally blurting out during a podcast that she had sex with Jagger when she was two years under the age of consent. The podcast is due to air today. Speaking on tape to showbiz 'bible' The Hollywood Reporter, she was asked how she landed the Commando role: 'I got it because I'd been in a Jagger video and then they asked me how I knew Mick and before I knew it I'd blurted out that I'd had sex with him when I was 15. It just slipped out. 'I feel incredibly bad about it. It's me and my big mouth. My family and friends knew about it but it's not something I have ever dined out on.'

Last night, Sir Mick declined to comment...

...She says that her own family will be 'disgusted' by her decision to go public and believes Jagger himself will be angry and devastated: 'He's probably going to lose his **** because I was a minor. He's going to be so mad at me.'...

...'Mick was very beautiful, very shy, very self-absorbed,' she recalls. 'He had great lips, he was a great kisser. He wasn't that much older than me in my brain. He was 33 and young and gorgeous with a nice body. It wasn't a bad thing, it was fabulous. Totally rock 'n' roll. He didn't make me do anything I didn't want to do, but he was very vain, always looking in the mirror.'

The age of consent at the time was 17, but Sir Mick cannot face criminal charges as the statute of limitations for reporting second-degree rape is 20 years not that Rae Dawn would ever want him to be prosecuted...

...'He did nothing wrong. He didn't make me do anything I didn't want to do,' she said. 'It was the 1970s, a different era. I wasn't a victim.

'I don't want him to get into trouble about this. It wasn't traumatising. I knew what I was doing. I wasn't an innocent schoolgirl. I always acted a lot older than I was. I was a grown-up at 15. At 15, I was definitely a Lolita,' she said. 'I knew I had the power to pick and chose whatever man I wanted. I was keen to have every experience I could. Mick was part of that.'...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-married.html

Thermal 2nd February 2020 10:31 AM

Interesting dilemma, with her insisting she consented and was not a victim. So was she?
Not clear if Jagger knew she was underage

The Atheist 2nd February 2020 10:38 AM

Bill Wyman heard sniggering.

Just a slightly inflammatory headline.

Checkmite 2nd February 2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

'It was the 1970s, a different era.'
The 1970's was not a "different era" in any way that matters; underage sex was still illegal then, and people still went to jail for it when they were caught, unless of course they were rich and/or famous.

William Parcher 2nd February 2020 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975082)
Interesting dilemma, with her insisting she consented and was not a victim. So was she?

It's pretty obvious that she consented. But with her being 15 years old, she cannot legally consent and so therefore it was sexual assault which is rape. The law cannot describe her as anything other than a victim.

We see this constantly in modern cases with non-adult girls and boys who do consent to sex with adults but then the adult is hit with strong penalties when charged.

Quote:

Not clear if Jagger knew she was underage.
It's not supposed to matter. It doesn't seem to be a case of genuine entrapment such as her presenting a fake ID stating that she is of legal consent age.

casebro 2nd February 2020 10:59 AM

43 years is plenty pf time to conjure up false memories.

50 years since high school for me, and I really think I did sleep with all those girls I lied about. :D Though none of my memories include fames , like Raquel Welch frinstnce.

William Parcher 2nd February 2020 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casebro (Post 12975133)
43 years is plenty pf time to conjure up false memories.

Including Jagger saying that he has no memory of ever having sex with her.

shemp 2nd February 2020 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Parcher (Post 12975160)
Including Jagger saying that he has no memory of ever having sex with her.

Which may be true. When you've had sex with thousands of women, you can't remember them all.

I speak from experience. :D

Bob001 2nd February 2020 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975082)
Interesting dilemma, with her insisting she consented and was not a victim. So was she?
Not clear if Jagger knew she was underage

She says he didn't.

Quote:

I knew what I was doing. I was experimenting with Mick. I was having fun.'

Rae Dawn, who says Jagger did not know her age, recalls waking to find Jagger's bandmate Keith Richards staring at the pair.

Bob001 2nd February 2020 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12975110)
The 1970's was not a "different era" in any way that matters; underage sex was still illegal then, and people still went to jail for it when they were caught, unless of course they were rich and/or famous.

True enough. But that "when" is decisive. Nobody here, especially including the "victim," complained.

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casebro (Post 12975133)
43 years is plenty pf time to conjure up false memories.

50 years since high school for me, and I really think I did sleep with all those girls I lied about. :D Though none of my memories include fames , like Raquel Welch frinstnce.

Yeah, this. Lets look at the facts


1. She says she was a willing partner
2. She says she wasn't a "victim"
3. The statute of limitations expired 23 years ago
4. She says she would not want him prosecuted anyway
5. She says he didn't know her age

This story is just a big, fat nothingburger... oh, and it comes from the "Daily Fail" so that is a strike against it up front. ANYTHING that come from the "Fail" needs to at least be second sourced.

Go home folks, nothing to see here!

Thermal 2nd February 2020 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12975423)
She says he didn't.

Right, but I'd be interested in his evaluation at the time, more than her impression/recollection decades later.

As in, Jagger may have been fully aware, or at least suspected, she was underage at the time and ran with it anyway.

Jagger was from the UK, what was the AOC there at the time? Might it not even have occurred to him that he was breaking a US law?

Minoosh 2nd February 2020 05:00 PM

I had a 15-year-old girlfriend who told me, I think I may have slept with Dennis Hopper. And Im like, did you or didnt you? And she said, I did, but Im not really sure he was Dennis Hopper.

She was on the developed side and her parents for whatever reason tolerated her friendships with adult men.

This was back in 75 or so. And Im wondering how many people would lie about being Dennis Hopper?

She said he was really nice, gave her a few pointers for her performance :boggled:

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975457)
Right, but I'd be interested in his evaluation at the time, more than her impression/recollection decades later.

As in, Jagger may have been fully aware, or at least suspected, she was underage at the time and ran with it anyway.

Jagger was from the UK, what was the AOC there at the time? Might it not even have occurred to him that he was breaking a US law?

16, and its been that in England and Wales since 1885

Arcade22 2nd February 2020 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12975424)
True enough. But that "when" is decisive. Nobody here, especially including the "victim," complained.

She was groomed, that's the problem. She's so far gone that she doesn't even recognize she was a victim of child rape. This is exactly why it doesn't matter if it was consensual or not.

casebro 2nd February 2020 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12975506)
She was groomed, that's the problem. She's so far gone that she doesn't even recognize she was a victim of child rape. This is exactly why it doesn't matter if it was consensual or not.

If she was groomed it was by the "Free Love" society if the time.

40 years later, today's society would sure be different if it wasn't for herpes and HIV.

p0lka 2nd February 2020 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12975466)
16, and its been that in England and Wales since 1885

offtopic: for heterosexual sex yeah, quite different if she was a he, it was 21 in 1977 and it was 18 until late 90's as i recall... talk about inequality, but yeah offtopic.

wasapi 2nd February 2020 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12975110)
The 1970's was not a "different era" in any way that matters; underage sex was still illegal then, and people still went to jail for it when they were caught, unless of course they were rich and/or famous.

But there was a very different atmosphere then, prior to me2 movement. It was also still an era when free love and sex in general were discussed with a more relaxed attitude then it had been in years prior.

This just seems a nothing-much-to-it article.

Elagabalus 2nd February 2020 07:43 PM

I always hated the Stones so they should lock 'em up.

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12975506)
She was groomed, that's the problem. She's so far gone that she doesn't even recognize she was a victim of child rape. This is exactly why it doesn't matter if it was consensual or not.

Oh, rubbish. When did he have time to groom her... they had just met. As casebro said, she would certainly have been influenced by the times at that age. I don't really think you can call that "grooming".

If you weren't a teenager in the late 1960s and the 1970s, then you really have no actual idea - Woodstock, flower power, hippies, free love, sexual inhibitions zero.... it was all happenin' man, and yeah, underage girls (and boys for that matter) were gettin' their rocks off, without being "groomed" because that's what they wanted. I'll bet you that among the 400,000 people at Woodstock, there was a truckload of under-age kids "getting it on"!

Venom 2nd February 2020 08:29 PM

I'm tired of claims of "child rape" due to this type of reporting.

This was inappropriate but she seems to relish recalling the fling, not like she was traumatized like a prepubescent child who suffered rape would be.

Often the public is going to be far more shocked than the participants. It's a nothingburger as far as I'm concerned.

Jagger isn't Epstein, let alone true child rapists like Peter Scully (not for the queasy).

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venom (Post 12975623)
I'm tired of claims of "child rape" due to this type of reporting.

This was inappropriate but she seems to relish recalling the fling, not like she was traumatized like a prepubescent child who suffered rape would be.

Often the public is going to be far more shocked than the participants. It's a nothingburger as far as I'm concerned.

Jagger isn't Epstein, let alone true child rapists like Peter Scully (not for the queasy).

Uggh! Honestly, anyone reading this who has a weak stomach, please don't Google this scrumbag.

MicahJava 2nd February 2020 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975082)
Interesting dilemma, with her insisting she consented and was not a victim. So was she?
Not clear if Jagger knew she was underage

I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.

TragicMonkey 2nd February 2020 08:53 PM

I don't think we're confined to statutes of limitations or the letter of the law when we decide whether a given behavior and/or person is sleazy.

Thermal 2nd February 2020 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicahJava (Post 12975637)
I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.

i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?

angrysoba 2nd February 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12975585)
If you weren't a teenager in the late 1960s and the 1970s, then you really have no actual idea - Woodstock, flower power, hippies, free love, sexual inhibitions zero.... it was all happenin' man, and yeah, underage girls (and boys for that matter) were gettin' their rocks off, without being "groomed" because that's what they wanted. I'll bet you that among the 400,000 people at Woodstock, there was a truckload of under-age kids "getting it on"!

No doubt. Were they getting it on with adults more than twice their age?

I think that morally that makes a difference.

Besides, there is a reason why there is an age of consent. It is because people of that age are not considered mature enough to make the decision, just as pubs can't serve children beer on the basis that "they wanted it."

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975660)
No doubt. Were they getting it on with adults more than twice their age?

I think that morally that makes a difference.

Probably does, but it didn't seem to bother her.... then or now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975660)
Besides, there is a reason why there is an age of consent. It is because people of that age are not considered mature enough to make the decision, just as pubs can't serve children beer on the basis that "they wanted it."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicahJava (Post 12975637)
I don't think what the accuser thinks matters here. It is reasonable to say that 15 is not mature enough for sex, and anybody who has sex with someone that young is a danger to society.

Bollocks! 16 as an AoC is just an arbitrary number and it varies from country to country.

In Aruba its 15, in Brazil, Paraguay, Peru Ecuador and Bolivia its 14. In Canada its 16 but is can be as low as 12 under certain circumstances due to a “close-in-age” exception; 14- and 15-year-olds can legally consent to a partner less than five years older than them and 12- and 13-year-olds can consent to a partner less than two years older than them.

Even the USA does not have a fixed AoC that applies across the board. It ranges from 16 to 18 depending on the state.

Venom 2nd February 2020 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975654)
i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?

I think she should be treated as an outlier.

Apparently Mick Jagger didn't know her real age. He just met her and all. I mean....I say all the time, same deal with our cavemen ancestors. Unless they are some abnormal pedophile normally they wouldn't pick out children out of a crowd. But a teenager can quite easily blend into a young adult crowd, say a group of 16-25 year olds I think it'd be silly to demand every person show their ID card and birth certificate (the long form) before you decide whether you are sexually attracted to them or not.

Consent laws of course exist to streamline the process but it takes no prisoners and there are many young couples who fall victim to it.

Brainster 2nd February 2020 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12975581)
I always hated the Stones so they should lock 'em up.

Yeah, I'm more of a Who/Pete Townshend fan. Oh, wait.

angrysoba 2nd February 2020 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12975662)
Probably does, but it didn't seem to bother her.... then or now.

That's true of all kinds of illegal sex. So what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12975662)
Bollocks! 16 as an AoC is just an arbitrary number and it varies from country to country.

So what? Are you saying it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12975672)
Yeah, I'm more of a Who/Pete Townshend fan. Oh, wait.

Indeed!

Newsflash: "1970's Rock Star Sleeps with Under Age Girl" pictures at 6!!

(well, maybe not the pictures)

shemp 2nd February 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12975654)
i think it's reasonable to say that in general, 15 is normally not ready.

What I'm seeing is a young woman who appeared to be ready, unlike most of her peers. Should she be treated as an outlier, or made to conform to other peoples arbitrary AOCs?

What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have to do with this?

Matthew Best 2nd February 2020 09:26 PM

She's only 15 years old.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Thermal 2nd February 2020 09:26 PM

Hey, we are talking about Mick Jagger here, not Vaniila Ice. He could bang me at 15, or now should he please. Him and/or Bowie. Well, not Bowie right now. But maybe.

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975676)
That's true of all kinds of illegal sex. So what?

pretty sure its not true of paedophiles or sexual predators who prey on children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975676)
So what? Are you saying it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

Nah, I thought you might try that on - I've been around too long to fall for that game. That's why I was very careful to separate your post into two parts and reply to each part separately.

You said "besides" and in so doing you divorced your next comment from the earlier part of your post about the morality of it. My answer did not address the morality of it at all, it addressed your comment (and MicahJava's) about age of content, and only that.

Venom 2nd February 2020 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975676)
So what? Are you saying it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

No it's not okay imo.

However.....I don't think it's particularly abnormal.
When you cross the line into pedophilia (pre-puberty) then it becomes abnormal and off limits.

angrysoba 2nd February 2020 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12975691)
pretty sure its not true of paedophiles or sexual predators who prey on children.



Nah, I thought you might try that on - I've been around too long to fall for that game. That's why I was very careful to separate your post into two parts and reply to each part separately.

You said "besides" and in so doing you divorced your next comment from the earlier part of your post about the morality of it. My answer did not address the morality of it at all, it addressed your comment (and MicahJava's) about age of content, and only that.

Then cut to the chase, do you think it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

Your "nothing to see here, folks" and "it was the 70s, folks!" apologetics appears to appear to exonerate Jagger.

Elagabalus 2nd February 2020 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12975672)
Yeah, I'm more of a Who/Pete Townshend fan. Oh, wait.

I'm only into the classics.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


15, 17 c'est la mme chose ... non?

smartcooky 2nd February 2020 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12975697)
Then cut to the chase, do you think it is okay for 33 year old men to have sex with 15 year olds?

Your "nothing to see here, folks" and "it was the 70s, folks!" apologetics appears to appear to exonerate Jagger.

Oh, how you would love everything to be conveniently black and white eh, so that you can compartmentalise everything everyone says or does into nice, tidy little boxes; this thing is "right" and this thing is "wrong". I think you're trying to put Jagger into your "wrong" box with Jimmy Saville.

Well, I have news for you angrysoba - the real world is nothing like that - you'll be needing lot more boxes and they will need to be marked in many, many shades of grey.

But to directly answer your question, I neither exonerate nor condemn him, I simply recognise reality when I see it. Compartmentalise that!

This sort of thing was happening all the time in the 1970s

- he didn't know how old she was
- she didn't tell him
- I suspect she would have lied if he had asked
- and she didn't have a problem with it then, or now

My position on this case is "no harm, no foul"

Thermal 2nd February 2020 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12975708)
I'm only into the classics.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


15, 17 c'est la mme chose ... non?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.