For the record, Elvis was porking Priscilla when she was a gorgeous and precocious (read: slutty) 14-year-old.
Something else you have to understand is that newspapers didn’t report about this stuff because generally the public didn’t want to know about it. As strange as it may seem today back then any reputable newspaper or magazine would have a difficult time even broaching the subject without making *themselves *look like a sleazy, pornographic scandal sheet. Even though they were still journalists reporting factual news if that news was especially salacious (sex, drugs etc.) it would make the reporters and their publications appear as smut-peddlers to the public.
Priscilla won a defamation suit against an author who wrote she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night.
Elvis has a number of accusations that he did more than just heavy petting with his teen-age loves. I can’t find in a quick search that any of these has been proven.
We actually recently had a presentation which included the consent laws in Canada - what I found was fascinating is that Canada is one of the few countries that not only does “No mean No”, but that requires a “Yes” or consent is not considered given. Also, that “yes” can’t be given under pressure or feeling pressured or threatened.
She has claimed many times that she was a virgin until she got married. :dubious: Their sex life lasted exactly 9 months and 1 week, because she got pregnant almost immediately after the wedding, and it’s been well known that Elvis couldn’t “perform” with a woman who had given birth.
:eek:
Really, though, 99% of the girls and women who go backstage have no desire to have sex with any of the band members. They just want to get a hug, an autograph, and a kiss on the cheek, that kind of thing.
If you go back to the Joey Buttafuco/Amy Fisher scandal in 1992, originally the Nassau County Police were not going to prosecute Joey for having sex with an underage girl (I think they did it a few days before she turned legal). It was only when he was dumb and arrogant enough to call Howard Stern’s radio show denying it that the police decided to prosecute him and he got six months in the slammer.
OP question: if you are a fan of someone, you will make excuses for him.
“On 2 June 1989, aged 52, Wyman married 18-year-old Mandy Smith whom he had been dating since she was 13 and he was 47 years old. According to Smith, their relationship was sexually consummated when she was 14 years old.[21] Their relationship was the subject of considerable media attention. The marriage ended in spring 1991, although the divorce was not finalised until 1993.[22] In 1993, while Wyman was still married to Smith, Stephen, his son from his first marriage, married Smith’s mother.[21]”
Well, as has been talked about a million times 14 was and is fine - unless your some kind of Victorian prude. It’s the age gap that’s the issue.
It happened in that particular case because Mandy’s mum pretty well pimped her out to Wyman. hdoesn’t excuse his behaviour but the girl was let down by two adults.
As mentioned there is no statute of limitations for serious crimes in the UK. Indeed guidance to the police requires them to take historic allegations seriously and, further, the police these days often appeal to the public to come forward with any allegations.
The result is the UK police have literally thousands of cases they are working through. Any rape investigation can be difficult but historic cases dating back to the 1950s even more so. Thus the police are dealing with the backlog slowly and investigations are taking years.
There are huge amounts of cases, and potential cases (no charges made yet) against all sorts of UK celebrities and household names. Pop stars, TV stars, Comedians, DJs and more.
Politicians are included and, for example, there is an on going investigation into an alleged cabal of homosexual peadophile rapist murderers operating out of the Houses of Parliament. That’s not hyperbole: The investigation is looking at male Members of Parliament who procured and abducted young boys, gang raped them and then killed them.
I think the extension of the age of consent for girls is just a symptom of the broader trend of extending childhood longer and longer.
When I was a teen, anyone still living at home in their 20’s (unless in school) was looked at askance. Most everyone I knew had a job by the time they were 14. People would make fun of you if you went out trick or treating on halloween past the age of 12 or so. My junior high school and high school both had smoking rooms for the students, and it was a rite of passage to take your driver’s license test on your 16th birthday or close to it, even if you didn’t have a car. My brother moved out of the house when he was 16. I didn’t go until I was 19.
And of course, we gave kids a lot more responsibility then. I was walking six blocks to school in grade 1, and the sidewalks were full of other kids doing the same. Today, there are no kids on the sidewalks, but lines of cars at the schools to pick the little darlings up. One parent at my kid’s school got a visit from child services because she let her kid walk one block to the school without supervision.
So… I suspect that 14-16 year old girls in that era and before were more world-wise and emotionally capable than similar children today, which might explain why we didn’t think it was as big a deal if they got into a sexual relationship - especially if the age gap wasn’t too large. Lots of girls in my high school were dating ‘college boys’ or young men who were out of high school and now working. No one thought much of it, other than to hate on the college guys for stealing all the cute girls.
Then again like with rock stars and tween girls, wasn’t that sort of expected of MP’s for a while…?
[/QUOTE]
The murder part was probably not expected (unless, for example, you subscribe to some of the wilder Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories and even those crimes involved young women rather than boys).