My mum the rapist apologist

petemadoc

So after a few drinks at the dinner table last night my mother revealed some of her views on the recent Jimmy Saville affair and a few other things. Here's a few of the gems she came out with, I'd like to hear other people's opinions.

We shouldn't be pursuing men who raped girls in the 60s and 70s because it was a different time. In fact these girls were probably asking for it. Back then sexual advances towards 15 year old girls was acceptable, just like drink driving, these men didn't do anything wrong. I knew 15 year old girls who used to go after footballers in the local bars and they're not damaged and they don't have psychological problems.

The only reason there are more gay people about today is because it is socially acceptable, less people would be gay if it wasn't. The reason young girls got raped is because it was socially acceptable back then.

She also denied that climate change is a result of human behaviour, I thought this debate was pretty much over.

I'm pretty shocked to be honest. Do other people quietly share these views but just don't say it.

MountainMonster

While I can sort of see her point of view, while it was accepted at the time doesn't make it right.

And climate change. Really?

sungod

it's never too late to get adopted

pblakeney

It was a different time with different attitudes.
That is not to say that they were right, just different.

Consider groupies? How many rock band members are nervous these days?

Jimmy Saville was a predator though which is different.

Yes many of the older generations will hold these opinions, if silently.

It is hard for some to change opinions held for decades even when faced with the evidence.

CiB

Re first para, has it occurred to you that she may have a point and might even be reflecting the reality of the 60s & 70s?

I know it's fashionable to sneer at the views held by previous generations, but it doesn't automatically make them wrong holding opinions that don't chime with 21st century opinions.

I am pretty shocked at her claim that there would be less gays though. It's fewer, not less. Atrocious...

ballysmate

PeteMadoc wrote:

So after a few drinks at the dinner table last night my mother revealed some of her views on the recent Jimmy Saville affair and a few other things. Here's a few of the gems she came out with, I'd like to hear other people's opinions.

We shouldn't be pursuing men who raped girls in the 60s and 70s because it was a different time. In fact these girls were probably asking for it. Back then sexual advances towards 15 year old girls was acceptable, just like drink driving, these men didn't do anything wrong. I knew 15 year old girls who used to go after footballers in the local bars and they're not damaged and they don't have psychological problems.

The only reason there are more gay people about today is because it is socially acceptable, less people would be gay if it wasn't. The reason young girls got raped is because it was socially acceptable back then.

She also denied that climate change is a result of human behaviour, I thought this debate was pretty much over.

I'm pretty shocked to be honest. Do other people quietly share these views but just don't say it.

Don't know your mum's age but is probably a product of her times.
Homosexuality wasn't decriminalised until 1967 and the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins stated, "those who suffer from this disability carry a great weight of shame all their lives" (quoted during parliamentary debate by The Times on 4 July 1967). That was the general view towards homosexuality at the time.

And as MM says, climate change? Really?

nathancom

What they did was a crime at the time otherwise they couldn't be legally pursued. So basically your mother is saying that the law should ignore criminal offences on the basis of whether a section of society think these laws apply to them or not. Just because society failed to offer protection to 15 year old girls doesn't make it right. Would you mind if Stuart Hall was touching up your daughter, whether it was in the 70s or today?

And yes the climate change argument is over, but then people didn't believe the earth went round the sun for some time after it was proven, so the slow spread of scientific knowledge through the population is not strange. It is really remarkable how informed the average man/woman in the street actually is.

petemadoc

For the record my mother is 55

tuneskyline

That's a shame. My mum who's now dead would never have defended that view and she would be older than your mum. Some things are quite clearly wrong and sometimes people don't have the courage to acknowledge these things and c%%ts like Hall get away with it. Your mum is a victim of the times and her views have been blinded by those times and the people around her as she has lived her life as to what is or is not acceptable.
She is not going to be the only one with that view.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

It was a different time with different attitudes.
That is not to say that they were right, just different.

Consider groupies? How many rock band members are nervous these days?

Jimmy Saville was a predator though which is different.

Yes many of the older generations will hold these opinions, if silently.

It is hard for some to change opinions held for decades even when faced with the evidence.

Jimmy Page and Lori Maddox?

secretsam

Hmmmm...she's kind of right and wrong, times were different but there's a whiff of Daily Heil about all this

The Climate Change thing is probably the drink talking

ballysmate

PeteMadoc wrote:

For the record my mother is 55

I am only 2 years younger but don't share her views on historic criminal actions.

team47b

tuneskyline wrote:

victim of the times

Victim?

We all live within the current ethical guidelines handed to us by others, whilst retaining our own morals, ultimately we make the choices it was never compulsory.

meagain

Also for context - I'm over 10 years older than your mum.

"We shouldn't be pursuing men who raped girls in the 60s and 70s because it was a different time. In fact these girls were probably asking for it. Back then sexual advances towards 15 year old girls was acceptable, just like drink driving, these men didn't do anything wrong. I knew 15 year old girls who used to go after footballers in the local bars and they're not damaged and they don't have psychological problems."

I think that there is more than one argument in here. Rape is and, as I recall those days, WAS wrong and not acceptable, even in the rough crowds in which I ran. Probably more so than among equivalent sub-cultures today. Sexual advances WAS a different matter, certainly amongst and between those of a similar age. We all "knew" that intercourse started at 16, most other aspects of physical relationship did not have any such clear cut "rules". Quite a few of my mates married 16 y.os.

For "old men" (over early 20s!) to take such liberties WAS considered plain wrong. Probably a different slant if famous. And yes of course there were girls who pursued bands - but mostly over 16 - children did not grow up so young as now.

If any sexual contact with and between those then 15-17 were to be subjected to the letter of the law now, then the prisons would indeed be full of the over 60s, male and female. This is not to say that the likes of Saville (who no one with any sanity trusted with teenage girls even then) should not be subjected to trial. Where to draw the line is as always tricky.

As for the gays bit....It IS difficult entirely to discard the mores and prejudices with which one grows up. Had I remained in the community in which I spent my teens rather than moving to a more cosmopolitan and diverse city then maybe I'd not have changed so much. There were no gays (well obviously there were!) and few non-white faces. A lot as always depends on ones parents: my mum was a tolerant soul and while my dad hated gays (only he used far less polite words) he prided himself on employing any colour or race as long as they grafted.

My age group grew up at a time when "no blacks, no Irish, no dogs" notices were displayed in lodgings. My wife is of Irish descent - London born - and was openly abused and threatened as a child for it. Not an attitude we have passed to our children.

Don't talk of the good ol' days to me. Intolerance is bad.

tyred&weary

PeteMadoc wrote:

Back then sexual advances towards 15 year old girls was acceptable, just like drink driving, these men didn't do anything wrong.

Not so much acceptable as swept under the carpet as if it hadn't happened, to be raped or assaulted brought a stigma to the house. If you were underage you needed support from parents to take it to the police and often that did not happen. The culture of the 70s and 80s actually did reinforce the feeling that it was acceptable in everyone concerned, despite the law saying otherwise. Women and children who complained about rape or assault were found to be at fault for some reason and we found that complaining got us into more trouble than remaining quiet. At the very least if we complained we were being malicious - somehow it was always our fault.

We have the legacy today where women who have been raped still have reasons sought to find them at fault because of dress, previous promiscuity or being in a place that no woman who wasn't asking for it should be. Yes there should be doubt as with any other accusation, and the man should be innocent until proven guilty, but the woman should also be accorded the same respect and not have reasons sought to brand her a liar either.

Maybe your mother needed the drinks to face the denial from you that she encountered from others in her youth. She lived through it; you have just constructed your model of the time in your head. Try respecting her judgement of what she witnessed.
...
I doubt the % of the population that are gay has changed much, what has changed is there is no need to hide it to avoid imprisonment.
...
Climate change has been going on forever; it wasn't human actions that ended the ice ages.

Majestic 12

Jimmy Saville has always been regarded as a pervert and should he be in the land of the living, I would love for him to be sent down until his demise.

Q. The climate change issue. Is this closed because it is proven to be caused by humans or not by humans? Answers on a postcard please. I have read that the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by the Mount St Helens eruption was greater than all the carbon emitted by human history.

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

It was a different time with different attitudes.
That is not to say that they were right, just different.

Consider groupies? How many rock band members are nervous these days?

Jimmy Saville was a predator though which is different.

Yes many of the older generations will hold these opinions, if silently.

It is hard for some to change opinions held for decades even when faced with the evidence.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Jimmy S was a predator and as such is totally different to a guy sleeping with a 15 year old he met at a nightclub thinking she was older.

Remember, nature says women should have sex and reproduce from the age of 11-13 so its only a social issue and nothing more !

ballysmate

As VTech points out, age of consent is a social thing and varies throughout the world.
Different countries view things differently.

rolf_f

I wonder what opinions we consider acceptable today will be viewed with disgust in 20,30,40 or 50 years time.......

VTech

Rolf F wrote:

I wonder what opinions we consider acceptable today will be viewed with disgust in 20,30,40 or 50 years time.......

If current methods are upheld, I would consider that in 20-40 years you will lose your home if you say the wrong thing. Freedom of speech will be a thing of the past in the open forum and left to the dingy back rooms of society.

I think within 50 years there will be a war to end all wars, humanity can't continue this chosen path without something breaking.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

I wonder what opinions we consider acceptable today will be viewed with disgust in 20,30,40 or 50 years time.......

This has always been the case, and always will be.
Everyone thinks their opinions are the truth when they are in their 20s. These opinions tend to be queried 50 years later.

meagain wrote:

For "old men" (over early 20s!) to take such liberties WAS considered plain wrong. Probably a different slant if famous. And yes of course there were girls who pursued bands - but mostly over 16 - children did not grow up so young as now.

One word answer - Mandy.

BelgianBeerGeek

To the OP: if you love your mum you will forgive her her views. You may be appalled, but your mum will not be with you forever. My parents are still only in their 60's, so not old, and some of their views really shock me. I put it down to their Daily Mail reading :P

Still, the bigoted old f***ers won't be with me forever, so whatever. Things move on for a reason. I have however found myself shouting at the telly like me dad.

VTech

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

To the OP: if you love your mum you will forgive her her views. You may be appalled, but your mum will not be with you forever. My parents are still only in their 60's, so not old, and some of their views really shock me. I put it down to their Daily Mail reading :P

Still, the bigoted old f***ers won't be with me forever, so whatever. Things move on for a reason. I have however found myself shouting at the telly like me dad.

finchy

Majestic 12 wrote:

Q. The climate change issue. Is this closed because it is proven to be caused by humans or not by humans? Answers on a postcard please. I have read that the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by the Mount St Helens eruption was greater than all the carbon emitted by human history.

There is no such thing as 100% proof in the natural science, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports human-caused global warming. That's why those who have vested interests in preventing action spend so much time, money and effort into spreading misinformation and half-truths - quite simply they don't have a scientific leg to stand on. That Mount St Helens eruption fact that you quoted, for example, is complete lying bollox (not on your part I hasten to add), but it has had the intended effect of sowing doubts in your mind.

Jez mon

What isn't necessarily complete lying bollocks, however, is that the climate models that are used are rather complex and vary a fair bit in how dire their predictions are. Furthermore, we can't really validate them until, well, either we suffer massively or get off relatively lightly...

However, as far as I'm aware, there is no real debate amongst scientists, claiming there is, is simply a tactic used by climate sceptics to try and create doubt.

fatsmoker

My old girl said the same as the OPs about Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris. I was speechless. I blame the Daily Mail.

Watching the football yesterday she is also against footballers' haircuts, footballers' tattoos, footballers' celebrations ('when they're jumping all over each other') and finally the two hands that come together when a replay is shown.
However, she still makes a wicked chocolate cake so all is forgiven.

bianchimoon

was on a MTB ride when one of the guys got a call from his mother to tell him Rolf Harris had been arrested, He said i don't know which is most shocking, Rolf Harris being arrested or the fact that my Mother felt the need to phone me on a MTB ride to tell me

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

was on a MTB ride when one of the guys got a call from his mother to tell him Rolf Harris had been arrested, He said i don't know which is most shocking, Rolf Harris being arrested or the fact that my Mother felt the need to phone me on a MTB ride to tell me

Perhaps she thought you may have a story to tell.

Can we guess what it is?

bianchimoon

PBlakeney wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

was on a MTB ride when one of the guys got a call from his mother to tell him Rolf Harris had been arrested, He said i don't know which is most shocking, Rolf Harris being arrested or the fact that my Mother felt the need to phone me on a MTB ride to tell me

Perhaps she thought you may have a story to tell.

Can we guess what it is?

you can have a guess if you want, not sure I can help you tho' as it was a mates mother that rang him

bdu98252

There are two extremes to this argument. There is the Jimmy Savill end of the scale deliberately targeting under 16 girls and boys with the intent of having sexual relations with them when they are clearly under 16. In many cases this was likely to be forced or at the very least an abuse of power bordering on grooming as he was a star.

The other end of the extreme is a boy and a girl have consensual sex when he is 16 and the girl is 15 within a relationship that they have had for a couple of years. Legally he is a statutory rapist and the girl has been raped. They may continue this into marriage and have kids and live happily ever after.

I have a problem with people using power or age to influence in the main young girls into things that if they were a bit older would have the courage of conviction to say no to and don't mind harsh sentences.

There are degrees of rape and the penalty should reflect this. If we fail to strike this balance in law then we will fail to protect the victims as the crime will be debased. I for one would want a high sentence for a individual who stalks women and rapes them indiscriminately as they go about their business.

pblakeney

bianchimoon wrote:

you can have a guess if you want, not sure I can help you tho' as it was a mates mother that rang him

My apologies.
Maybe he has a story.