Joan didn’t write it, she just changed the gender pronouns.
The original was written and sung by a bloke.
If you want to start a thread about drinking and driving or '70s racism or whatever nobody is stopping you.
Sorry, you asked “why”. up_the_junction gave an answer similar to those of at least a dozen other posters. You don’t get to declare a perfectly reasonable answer out of bounds because you don’t like it.
I understand the need, and I think most do too, of needing laws to prevent abuse of children. But calling someone a perv merely because they are sexually attracted to a sexually mature person is a bit strong. We have the laws we have today due to the economic need of people needing 12+ years of schooling. Not because it’s inherently immoral to find a fully developed 16 1/3 year old attractive. And it varies by state and nation. So is one a perv in Massachusetts for marrying and consummating the marriage at 14? Now I’m not advocating old adults have relations with young teens. But I have a hard time seeing the crime, other than offending old fashioned prudishness, of a 19 and a 16 or a 20 and a 17 or a 15 and 14 year old.
Somehow I got the idea that some states have a 2 year slide or something on statutory rape? That is, if she’s 16 and he’s 17 or 18, it’s not SR, but if he’s 19 or older, it is.
Yes, generally known as Romeo and Juliet laws.
In the play, Juliet is two weeks from her 14th birthday. Romeo’s age isn’t mentioned.
Just like to add that years ago Mackenzie Philips went on Howard Stern and said that although she had sex with Mick Jagger when she was legal (17 I think) she said that the first thing he said to her when they got into the room was, *“I’ve wanted to do this since you were twelve”.
*
Rock stars are hedonistic, degenerate horn dogs and back in the 70s it took a lot to cause a scandal. If the sex was consensual nobody really gave a shit how old she was (or wasn’t)…
Ringo Star’s song sometimes gets a bad rap. You’re 16 (You’re Beautiful & you’re mine)
I think the guy in the song is a high school classmate referring to his gf. But, the strident PC crowd today assumes the worst. Odd, because the narrator in the song never implies that he’s an adult.
A few of the youtube comments are brutal and completely unfair to Ringo. A shame since it’s a great song.
Young Girl raises eyebrows also. I don’t know why, the lyrics are about a guy who found out a girl was too young and tells her to go home. But I guess everyone figures he banged her anyway.
She also had an incestuous relationship with her father. That didn’t surprise me at all.
I suspect it’s the “no evidence” thing that’s the real problem. People have been prosecuted for underage sex where the underage person was a willing participant. What makes it impossible is where as a consequence the underage person won’t testify. Take the OP example. There’s no way the woman would have testified against Bowie. If the police had called at her door she would have said “I was kidding, no such thing actually happened” and that would be that.
You chose to make a cheap point and to smear a named individual, I chose to put in a cultural context.
A reference point: You guys do know 14 is legal in most of the southern part of your continent, and plenty of other places. Albeit with conditions some of the time.
[quote=“aceplace57, post:68, topic:742919”]
Ringo Star’s song sometimes gets a bad rap. You’re 16 (You’re Beautiful & you’re mine)
I think the guy in the song is a high school classmate referring to his gf. But, the strident PC crowd today assumes the worst. Odd, because the narrator in the song never implies that he’s an adult.
A few of the youtube comments are brutal and completely unfair to Ringo. A shame since it’s a great song.
[/QUOTE]FTR, that was a cover a song originally recorded in 1960 by Johnny Burnette and written by the Sherman Brothers who would later compose the songs for Mary Poppins. You couldn’t find a better example of white bread teen pop from that era.
Anyway, since we’re talking about songs about 16 year old girls from the 1950s and early 60s,“Only Sixteen” by Sam Cooke (and subsequently covered by Dr. Hook) would also probably raise a few eyebrows now. (Here’s a link tothe Sam Cooke version.)
Plenty of people gave perfectly reasonable answers, including yourself. up_the_junction, however, initially responded with a vaguely homophobic rejoinder attempting to undermine my general query about things that, as other posters in this thread have illustrated, are a matter of record and not just hearsay. up_the_junction then proceeded to change tack and say well other terrible things happened why concentrate on just this, which is a bog standard waste of a response in any thread. The thread is about a specific thing, complaining that I’m not asking about something else entirely is tantamount to thread shitting.
All your posts are cheap points.
You may find this podcast interesting as it covers this exact topic.
It’s a guy called Dan Carlin who does very good history podcasts but also does this series.
http://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/
It’s episode 276 - Past Transgressions
If you think a post is out of line, report it. Don’t Jr. Mod or hijack the thread discussing it. The OP doesn’t really get to define or moderate how a thread progresses.
Thanks, will have a look.
Go 27 mins into it to get to the point as he just deals with his podcast info for the first bit.