David Bowie

[magazinewhore]

I'm a dork and bought his compilation CD at Whole Foods (don't judge) and I'm listening to it to and from work and so enjoying it because 1.) It sounds really good. 2)As a Gen Xer, I heard all the songs and didn't always know the relevance (although weirdly, I had a Ziggy Stardust tape in the mid-80s that I used to listen to), but I knew the blond Bowie on MTV.

I think it speaks volumes that Kurt Cobain honored an lesser-known Bowie song way before it was cool (and at a point where Bowie, as an aging rock star, was kind of the opposite of what was cool in the early 90s). And I love that Bowie was touched by that. After Cobain's death, Bowie sounded very touched and said he had no idea Kurt was a fan. I think that's lovely. They didn't know each other but they had a artist-to-artist connection.

[drpopcorn]

Now that hopefully the worst of the initial shock of David Bowie's passing has somewhat subsided, I wanted to post about an aspect of Bowie's life that to me, as a fan, is troubling, and ask how others feel it affects their sense of Bowie's legacy for them. The issue I'm referring to here is David Bowie's history of having sex with underage groupies, particularly Lori Mattix, who wrote about the experience she had with Bowie when she was fifteen years old. Back in January, Salon published an article about this issue. From the Salon article:

After David Bowie’s death took us all by surprise Monday, the tributes overwhelmed. Social media feeds were filled, almost unanimously, with videos and links and memes praising the influential artist who seems to possess near-universal appeal — he made enough hits to feel populist, and yet remained sufficiently influential to exist on a forever-cool plane with his scant handful of equals.

But in between the “Labyrinth” GIFs, the retrospectives and moving tributes to his style and gender performance, a quiet pushback began online, too. Don’t forget this part of the story, the messages suggested, with links to this earlier interview shared: “I lost my virginity to David Bowie: Confessions of a ‘70s groupie,” in which Lori Mattix (her name has historically also been spelled “Maddox” in press accounts) recounts her teenage days in the Los Angeles rock scene. Mattix had, in her own words, consensual sex with not only Bowie — at age 15 — but with Jimmy Page and Mick Jagger as well.

While I love David Bowie's music--Let's Dance will forever be part of the soundtrack of my youth--I find this aspect of his life troubling to the point where it casts a shadow on his legacy, and particularly on his image as one of popular music's more humanitarian spirits.

Jezebel also published a a good article on this issue by Jia Tolentino.

[Beeelicious]

I consider myself a good feminist and I have a hard time finding this issue terribly troubling. By all accounts it was consensual. Yes, she was underage, and that's bad, I get that. But it seems like it was something she strove to do, and that she doesn't consider herself a victim. I remember myself at that age, and I would have bent over backwards to have sex with any of my rock idols, and I would not have been a victim. It was also a different time, before AIDS, during the height of the sexual revolution. Why should we persecute him then? Honestly asking, not trying to be ignorant or contrary.

[Deleted]

Yes, she was underage, and that's bad, I get that. But it seems like it was something she strove to do, and that she doesn't consider herself a victim. I remember myself at that age, and I would have bent over backwards to have sex with any of my rock idols, and I would not have been a victim. It was also a different time, before AIDS, during the height of the sexual revolution. Why should we persecute him then?

I don't think he should be persecuted, but I don't think it's something that I would just push under the rug and ignore if I were a fan of his. I can't think of any artists who have impacted my life, so I can only speculate how I'd react to this particular news. I have tried to imagine what it would be like to find this sort of thing out about a friend or family member, though. I wouldn't bother to confront him over something that happened so long ago, and I wouldn't end the relationship over that one thing, but that person would lose some of my respect and get a permanent side-eye. I can say with certainty that it would make me think less of him.

The idea that "it was a different time" doesn't really fly with me because kids were kids no matter what the time period. Teenage girls weren't any more sophisticated then than they were now. It's easy to say you that wouldn't be a victim in that situation, but it's impossible to truly know that, especially when it's a matter of losing one's virginity. That's a very personal experience. The person you are with can do everything right, and you could still feel wrong. Really, there's no right way for an adult to have sex with a 13 or 14 year old. If it happens and the teen looks back on it fondly, that's great for them. But there are others who can have the exact same experience and feel violated or abused in retrospect. Consent laws are in place, and it's always better to err on the side of protecting children without exception regardless of circumstance (Just to be clear, I'm referring to a true age and peer disparity, not a situation like an 18 year old senior dating a 16 year old sophomore).

[ladyboy]

I get the "different time" argument and it is more on his/rock star's side, not the groupie. It was common for stars to screw groupies, and common for groupies to be young and chasing them. Yes, now it's not okay for that to occur, but then, it was the norm, so I don't think someone gets persecuted/viewed differently for not being so far above the common herd that they didn't see it was wrong and didn't behave according to our current-day expectations. I really don't find a rock star having sex with a groupie, which was consensual, to be an issue. Also, how old was he at the time? Probably early 20s? They're also not known for making the best decisions, so put two people in a weird situation (fame/groupie) and it's highly likely a poor decision will occur (although they may have thought screwing was a great idea! Not Judging!).

I loved all those groupie memoirs from the 70s, and would totally marvel over how they were 14, 15, 16. My parents would have locked me up if I stayed out past 11, let alone chased after rock stars. I always wondered how they did it, and weren't they worried about what their parents would think?! (I'm sure they wrote about it in their books, but I only remember the partying.)

[magazinewhore]

I've been thinking about this all night, and as someone who was was born in 1970 and remembers those times, I do truly think you can't underestimate how it was a different time (and how different values were).

Society has undergone a sweeping change in how it views children/adolescents and their sexual protection. Not only was sex much more free and open, but I think people didn't consider post-pubescent girls as "children" in the way we do now. We now have a culture of (I don't want to say pearl-clutching), but there's almost a reflexive panic when you say "sex offender" or certainly, pedophile. And I don't think that applies here. Yes, the power dynamic was different (star/groupie), but what I think this ignores is the sexual agency young girls can take on. Yes, she probably didn't understand the ramifications of her actions. And I certainly don't think it not a problematic thing for Bowie to do. But I have trouble using the term "rape." Society didn't understand the nuances of coercing and if a willing post-pubescents.

I consider myself a feminist, but I have trouble calling this rape. In part because I, too, remember what it was like when I developed at 14 and suddenly received male attention. As a young person, that is often your first avenue to power (or attention) in society and it's very heady. It's a really tricky thing. I think a girl can both use it and be exploited by it without understanding it. I remember openly flirting with my history teacher (who was probably in his 30s). He had previously flirted with my older sister in high school. I didn't know. But I really liked the attention.

I once interviewed a woman who wrote a novel about an 11 year-old in 1970s NYC who developed early and was sexual at that age. It was based on her life, and she realized later how weird it was, but also never considered herself a victim. I do worry that simply saying young women are always victims is reductive, even though I agree there is a substantial power difference. I feel like it almost negates the fact that young women are grappling with their sexuality and can have different reactions in different scenarios. That "always rape" reaction seems to take away their agency. I think it depends on the circumstances.

This is a difficult issue with a lot of nuances. And if we're going to consider Bowie a rapist for this, I think we probably have to consider all our rock stars (including all of the Beatles) guilty of the same thing. In 1978, Bowie was 31. I certainly don't admire his actions, but I do think it's more nuanced than it seems on paper.

I guess my takeaway is that statutory rape and rape can be two very different things. And really, why are we talking about Bowie when Jimmy Page is still alive and well.

[Deleted]

I do worry that simply saying young women are always victims is reductive, even though I agree there is a substantial power difference. I feel like it almost negates the fact that young women are grappling with their sexuality and can have different reactions in different scenarios. That "always rape" reaction seems to take away their agency. I think it depends on the circumstances.

There are circumstances where age really is only a number, but those circumstances are rare. And that's where the problem lies. Saying that a 13 or 14 year old has the right to explore their sexuality with a 20+ year old is, unfortunately, the same thing as saying a 20+ year old has the right explore his or her sexuality with a 13 or 14 year old. So while what David Bowie and other rock stars did may not have been a big deal retrospectively because the girl-groupies are now women and have no regrets or negative consequences, I think it's also important to draw a line somewhere in the here and now. Personally, I can't imagine a circumstance where it would be okay for a 13 or 14 year old to have sex with a 25 year old, but it's impossible for me to be objective about the concept because, as a parent, I can't help thinking of it in terms of my own kids at that age.

[Neurochick]

Feb 26, 2016 13:32:06 GMT -4 magazinewhore said:

I've been thinking about this all night, and as someone who was was born in 1970 and remembers those times, I do truly think you can't underestimate how it was a different time (and how different values were).

Society has undergone a sweeping change in how it views children/adolescents and their sexual protection. Not only was sex much more free and open, but I think people didn't consider post-pubescent girls as "children" in the way we do now. We now have a culture of (I don't want to say pearl-clutching), but there's almost a reflexive panic when you say "sex offender" or certainly, pedophile. And I don't think that applies here. Yes, the power dynamic was different (star/groupie), but what I think this ignores is the sexual agency young girls can take on. Yes, she probably didn't understand the ramifications of her actions. And I certainly don't think it not a problematic thing for Bowie to do. But I have trouble using the term "rape." Society didn't understand the nuances of coercing and if a willing post-pubescents.

I consider myself a feminist, but I have trouble calling this rape. In part because I, too, remember what it was like when I developed at 14 and suddenly received male attention. As a young person, that is often your first avenue to power (or attention) in society and it's very heady. It's a really tricky thing. I think a girl can both use it and be exploited by it without understanding it. I remember openly flirting with my history teacher (who was probably in his 30s). He had previously flirted with my older sister in high school. I didn't know. But I really liked the attention.

I once interviewed a woman who wrote a novel about an 11 year-old in 1970s NYC who developed early and was sexual at that age. It was based on her life, and she realized later how weird it was, but also never considered herself a victim. I do worry that simply saying young women are always victims is reductive, even though I agree there is a substantial power difference. I feel like it almost negates the fact that young women are grappling with their sexuality and can have different reactions in different scenarios. That "always rape" reaction seems to take away their agency. I think it depends on the circumstances.

This is a difficult issue with a lot of nuances. And if we're going to consider Bowie a rapist for this, I think we probably have to consider all our rock stars (including all of the Beatles) guilty of the same thing. In 1978, Bowie was 31. I certainly don't admire his actions, but I do think it's more nuanced than it seems on paper.

I guess my takeaway is that statutory rape and rape can be two very different things. And really, why are we talking about Bowie when Jimmy Page is still alive and well.

I was born in the late 1950's and yes, the 70's were VERY different. I had dinner with friends I went to school with in the 70's and we talked about hitchhiking and going to dance clubs and staying out late at night. The sexual revolution did exist, I mean we'd come out of a world where only "bad girls" enjoyed sex and you were supposed to be a virgin when you married or else you were one of those "bad girls." So sex itself wasn't seen as something harmful or bad. Today those same women I went to school with, who are mothers would NEVER let their daughters have that much freedom. Why? Well, the world really changed. First, STD's became deadly with AIDS and various other STD's; when I was a teenager, it was like, Penicillin was the magic pill that could cure it all. When I went to college about 35% of the girls either had an abortion or had a baby and put that baby up for adoption and most of the girls were not virgins.

Also drugs changed too, cocaine was always around but I remember a girl in my dorm whose father was in the TV business in California and she talked about doing cocaine; at that time cocaine was a Hollywood drug, very glamorous. And of course back then everybody wasn't armed to the teeth.

I think stuff happened just as much back then as it did now, but there were no 24/7 news channels all programmed to scare the shit out of you. People are much more skittish today, and much more frightened.

[LurkerNan]

I've mentioned before that the 70s was a debauched decade. However, if a the age of 15 I had gotten the opportunity to sleep with, say, David Cassidy or Bobby Sherman, I probably would have jumped in with both feet. Teen girls are stupid, just like teen boys.

The girl might have been willing, but she was too young to be allowed to make that decision. Bowie should have known better, and as a father later I am sure he probably realizes that. But guys in their early twenties in the 70s didn't ask how old the hot groupie was, they just went for it. I guess I see it as less offensive because back then he looked like you could knock him over with a light breeze. Dude was in no way threatening.

To me this is different from Cosby drugging girls, or Polanski drugging that teen he raped. Those guys were way older, knew they had no business doing what they did to the extent that they knocked those girls unconscious.

[Oxynia]

Technically, what Bowie did was rape in statutory terms, so he made a pretty bad decision there but I wouldn't brand him a rapist. The culture of that era and locale (Sunset Strip in the early 70s) was a hotbed of debauchery defined by drugs and groupie sex. It was an established norm, and the counter-revolution in women's rights gave girls like Lori Mattix, Sable Starr & Co. sexual agency at a pubescent age.  They voluntarily entered that arena with the singular goal of nailing as many rock stars as they could. From what I understand, both of their mothers were well aware of their daughters' activities and, if not overtly, at least tacitly upheld them (Lori's mother even gave Jimmy Page permission to "date" her daughter).  It was a perfect storm of consent, availability and normative behavior.

Bowie didn't pull a Polanski and disable girls in order to violate them. He invited her, she said yes when she could have said no, and the rest is history. He neither drugged her nor coerced her, and as much as a 15 year old cannot consent in legal terms, I feel that morally they were both in it together. The fact that she is defining the narrative of the experience in positive terms (while also making a meal of the story to the press) tells me she is no victim and he is no sex offender on the level of a Bill Cosby or R. Kelly.

As a feminist and mother of an adolescent girl close to her age at the time, I don't condone his behavior at all, but I do understand the circumstances that enabled it to happen. Despite the imbalance of power, he was less than ten years older than her so not of an entirely different generation, she was a willing participant and it's what everyone around him was doing. He was also completely blitzed out on cocaine for the duration of his time in LA. I think it's more a matter of compromised judgment vs. predatory menace, especially when we filter it through the lens of today's rape culture.

There was a later accusation of rape against him by a 30-year-old woman with whom he had spent a consensual night.  She claimed he coerced her and exposed her to AIDS.  He vigorously denied the charges and volunteered to take an HIV test, but it never made it that far as the judge threw out the charges on lack of evidence. 

I tend to give women the benefit of the doubt when they cry rape but in this case, it seemed like a plea for attention from the start.  In the case of baby groupies, it was girls fulfilling an agenda they set for themselves and coming up happy.  I reserve my outrage for the intentional perpetrators of rape and my sympathy for their very real victims who look back in anger, not appreciation.