Trackbacks & Pings

1. anthro.pophago.us » del.icio.us links for 2008.06.18 on 18 Jun 2008 at 11:03 am

   […] Open Thread: The R. Kelly Verdict at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture […]

2. File Under “S” for “See, that’s that BULLLLSHIT!”: The R. Kelly Verdict « Possumstew’s Weblog on 19 Jun 2008 at 6:38 pm

   […] of my all-time favorite sites (I’ll be posting several site links here presently, I promise), posted an open thread about this.  The comments from Essence magazine’s site - which I refuse to link here - are […]

3. Unwillingness of Milwaukee community to address local sex crime is disturbing beyond words « Pinto Beans on 03 Jul 2008 at 1:34 pm

   […] claim that of an 11 year old girl?  The whole thing reminded me of an open thread at Racialicious: The R. Kelly Verdict.  Again, the 14 year old victim in the video tape was accused of being “fast.”  […]

Comments

1. gatamala wrote:

   I remember the tape. That girl’s face was impassive, like stone. What she did, she did out of habit. Someone clearly had abused that girl before.

   I’ve heard the “fast” “she knew what she was doin’” comments too. Apparently black females can never be victims…or innocent little girls.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:17 am ¶

2. whatever15 wrote:

   The real kicker is that some people have referred to the OJ verdict and have said that this verdict is Karma for OJ getting off! WTF!

   Sista Toldja sums up my sentiments as well. I just can’t believe how many people are saying that the teenager asked for it! If a nine year old was making advances on an older man would the man be justified in molesting the child? Hell no! So why the hell is this alright?? 14 is not that much older than 9. Yet another example of why stereotypes should be challenged. I believe that the perceived over-sexuality of black women in society clouded a lot of peoples’ opinion.

   Also, I can’t believe the crap that people are spewing. So what if he’s a black man! This brings me back to the post earlier on Racialicious in which a woman was conflicted about turning yet another black man to police. However, she eventually did what was safe for her and the community.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:41 am ¶

3. Yvette wrote:

   Too bad Aaliyah is no longer alive in order to testify to Mr. Kelly’s proclivities.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:42 am ¶

4. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

   I’ve HAD it with some Black folks defending prison-worthy dysfunction because the person doing it is Black and male.

   I’ve HAD it with the idea that it is the racial duty of Black women and girls to take the blame for our sexual violations at the hands of some Black men.

   I’ve HAD it with Black women and girls not being able to have a healthy erotic/sexual life because our sexualities must be constantly misconstrued and exploited.

   I’ve HAD it with some adults (regardless of race or ethnicity, not being the adults when it comes to dealing with the under-18 set.

   I’ve HAD it with this society’s vampiristic need to feed off youth, be it sartorially or sexually.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

5. hypnoant wrote:

   Legally, its tough to convict someone if the alleged victim denies the crime took place. Did he pay her off? Probably. Did he do it? I don’t know.

   The biggest issue I see, as an African American man, is the unrestricted pass that AA bigwigs get from the community. Some of the comments mentioned remind one of the Boondocks episode “Trial of R kelley.” Its almost exactly the same.

   I can think you are a good musician, and still convict you. Not everyone can.

   Also, the want to “get back at the system” is partially to blame here. Unfortunately, justice is non-transferfable.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:29 am ¶

6. Chris wrote:

   Whatever15: I agree. That argument of “we don’t need another black man in jail” is exactly why Al Sharpton et al rallied behind the RAPISTS in the Dunbar Village crime as opposed to the victim.

   The problem isn’t just that there’s too many minorities behind bars, it’s that the law isn’t being applied fairly. In many cases, innocent men get imprisoned, but that doesn’t mean that guilty men should walk free on principle.

   All this verdict does is add to the laundry list of incidences (Genarlow Wilson, anyone?) that reinforce the message that young black girls are fast and easy, and therefore it’s perfectly acceptable to take advantage of them.

   Also, a note about the mole: it’s been 6 years. I’ve had at least 6 new moles pop up on my skin in that time, one being on my back, as well. How does that cast doubt as to whether it was really R. Kelly on that tape?

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

7. kim h20s wrote:

   @hypoant - i cosign with you. it disheartens me time and time again that our community gives certain people a “pass” even when their actions are destroying our community. we glorify drug dealers because they give away turkeys at christmas. we don’t want to villify kwame kilpatrick because he is a brother. we’re willing to overlook marion barry’s drug usage.

   whether or not it is r kelly on the tape, it is SOME adult man having sex with a young girl.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:45 am ¶

8. Eva wrote:

   I never liked R. Kelly and that was BEFORE this tape surfaced. I remember hearing on the radio that he had married Aaliyah and I thought that was strange because she was so young. When I mentioned that to a man I knew, he said, “well didn’t your great grandma get married at 15?” She did, but that was in the country and life expectancy was something like 40; we’re supposed to know better now.

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:56 am ¶

9. hypnoant wrote:

   Also, was it kinda funny that the R kelly discussion was a couple posts above the “where have all the good black men gone?

   funny, like, sad

   Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:10 am ¶

10. Michelle wrote:

    And you know what this verdict says to other paedophiles? “There’s a chance I can get off.” How many of these a-holes are going to be encouraged by this? How many more young black girls who are percieved as “fast” or “asking for it” are going to end up as victims because the justice system is easy on celebrities and the message heard ends up being the justice system is weak? A by-product of the justice system is the discouragement of crime, but clearly, it has failed in this instance.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:15 am ¶

11. mince wrote:

    kinda like that 10 year old girl here in England who was taken back to the home of two grown men, they got puny little sentences because the judge said she ‘looked old enough’ and was ‘dressed provocatively’ - why is it the childs fault? kids don’t go around mercilessly tricking grown men into having sex with them ffs!! too much victim blaming going on, too many wrong attitudes.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:06 am ¶

12. jed wrote:

    All this is in denial that young teens fuck; they always have, they always will. Black, white, yellow, red: the color makes no difference. Young teens are young adults, not old kids. After puberty, they are sexual animals like any other animal on this planet. Applying an arbitrary age when someone becomes “legal” contravenes the reality of the human sexual drive.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:07 am ¶

13. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    Disgusting. this goes to prove that nobody cares about young black girls.

    I guarantee y’all that if it was a white girl, R. Kelly would totally be punished.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:27 am ¶

14. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ jed–so, therefore….what? Because the young woman (may have hit) puberty and is now considered a “sexual animal like any other animal on this planet” –which, considering the racist connotations of calling a Black woman, young or old, “a sexual animal” on an anti-racist blog, may not be the best words to use, friend–that gave R. Kelly, a grown-ass man with 2 little girls, the right to have sex with her? My beef is not with the teenager, but with R. Kelly not being an adult and not seeking a consenting sexual encounter with someone over the age of 18.

    I think the one of the underlying reasons for the “arbitrary age” law is the concept of consent and the age in which a person can freely give it, regardless of the age hormones start raging….

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:34 am ¶

15. Treacle wrote:

    Jed,

    Does that mean you’re in favor of pedophilia?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:40 am ¶

16. YamYam wrote:

    I understand the practical need for society to protect young women from sexual advances before they achieve their own independence, and I also understand the particularity of R. Kelly being the perfect example of someone, who as a womanizer, would be one most grown women would enjoy seeing experience some form of punishment (just because he is opportunistic with women), but what is to be said about the scandlmongering going on oblivious to the fact, yes the fact, that some younger women WANT to know about love and sex. It’s as if people actually think that the Lolita is just a movie character. It’s so naive. It’s a practical draconian fundamentalist mindset to think that no woman under the legal age of consent ever actually desires older men absolutely. Why does it have to be the man’s fault when it’s not up to him but the woman in the first place?

    I’m not going to get into the real evidence of this happening because I want to see what people have to say, but it’s more real than some criminally manifested reality.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶

17. octogalore wrote:

    TCS: “I think the one of the underlying reasons for the “arbitrary age” law is the concept of consent and the age in which a person can freely give it, regardless of the age hormones start raging….”

    Cannot agree more. Kids masturbate in utero. That’s why my sister thought, until delivery, she was having a girl.

    There’s a difference between hormones and readiness, and the age-of-consent concept is an effective although necessarily imperfect way of dealing with that.

    The responsbility is on the older partner to respect that and comply. And yes, I agree, if she’d been a white girl and/or he hadn’t been a celeb, the verdict may very well have been quite different.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶

18. Persia wrote:

    The man has only recently fallen out of favor with listeners because his music has gotten SO shitty, that even the purveyors of Soulja Boy and Rihanna are like “Hmm, this kinda sucks.”

    Not really on topic, but that was very funny.

    R. Kelly’s not a pedophile– he’s an ephebphile. Splitting hairs to some, but he’s a statutory rapist, not a child molester. (And no, it’s not acceptable either way, but there is a difference.)

    The jury seems to hold that the victim denied it, so they had to acquit. Which I can almost understand. The rallying around this creep and the slut-shaming directed at a 15-year-old on the other hand…ugh.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:09 pm ¶

19. Jas wrote:

    This goes back to what I’ve said before about how there are a lot of blacks out there who will bend over backwards to defend blacks who clearly don’t deserve it when it comes to that individual doing harm to members of the black community.

    R. Kelli using that girl as a toilet seat was A-okay for a lot of individuals as long as that meant he could put out records. What people are saying now isn’t any different than what they were saying 6 years ago.

    “The girl is fast. She had it coming. Blah blah blah” Like someone said earlier blacks are rarely portrayed or considered victims. Even when it comes to other blacks.

    You could look at black crime for example. Which many non-blacks go on incessantly about but the victims of black crimes are black people the vast majority of the time. Sympathy however is usually reserved for non-black victims of a black criminal while there’s this attitude that well the black victims somehow brought it on themselves.

    Kind of reminds me of that black football player who was shot to death by those 4 black criminals who broke into his house and the first 2 days after the story broke they couldn’t stop talking about what a problem individual the victim had been in the past and saying he had it coming because he was a blacks sports star who didn’t behave when he was younger, etc. All of that because 4 guys decided to break into his house to rob him and the guy’s corpse was barely cold before the media just started spitting all over his image.

    Sorry to go off on a tangent but this crap really gets old. And it’s especially annoying to see blacks sticking up for sex offenders and pedophiles. Especially ones who decide to relieve themselves on young black girls. Unfortunately some of us don’t have our priorities straight.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶

20. Persia wrote:

    Let’s pretend I can spell, re my previous comment.

    YamYam, are you seriously implying that Lolita, as a fictional character, was some kind of seductress? Because I’m really hoping you never read that book.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:18 pm ¶

21. NancyP wrote:

    Yes, a black adult going after a white young girl would be punished.

    However, a white adult going after a white non-Hispanic young girl would not be punished, and the girl would be labeled a slut. Only white upper class girls can escape the slut label - and only in a fraction of cases.

    Case in point - the Catholic priest pedophile scandal featured boy victims, because those are the victims that could get a hearing. There were plenty of girl victims who never got a hearing or never even bothered to reveal their abuse to anyone, simply because they wouldn’t have been believed and would have been slut-shamed.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶

22. SarahMC wrote:

    YamYam, what do you mean “it’s not up to him but the woman in the first place?”
    It does. not. matter. if a young girl wants to get involved with an older man. Kids think they’re a lot more mature than they are. That doesn’t mean we throw our hands up and let them do whatever they want.
    It is adults’ responsibility to protect them and tell them NO, because as adults we are supposed to know better. Are you saying teenage girls are responsible for the behavior of grown men?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:21 pm ¶

23. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @YamYam and Jed -

    Please review these entries before commenting again:

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/27/sex-and-youth-why-we-need-community-focused-messaging/

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/28/debunking-myths-about-statutory-rape-race-and-class-part-2-of-3/

    http://www.racialicious.com/2008/02/29/debunking-myths-about-statutory-rape-race-and-class-part-3-of-3/

    Young girls are sexual, young girls may proposition older men, but young girls are not adults, are easily manipulated, and still have only a tenuous concept of their actions and relationship power dynamics.

    The onus is on older adults to steer them in the right direction. And again, we aren’t talking about the plausible relationships with people who are 2 - 4 years apart in age. That is actually quite common. But this young girl was 14 and R. Kelly was in his mid-thirties. There is no way to justify that.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:25 pm ¶

24. octogalore wrote:

    YamYam: “It’s a practical draconian fundamentalist mindset to think that no woman under the legal age of consent ever actually desires older men absolutely.”

    First of all, the descriptions of the tape suggest this was not the case here.

    Secondly, if you were actually familiar with Nabokov’s “Lolita,” you would know that Lolita does not in fact sexually desire Humbert, but uses her sexuality to manipulate him, in the context of a pseudo-parental relationship. She is alone and frightened after her mother has been killed.

    Most teens who experiment sexually do so with peers who are at a similar level of exploration and experience.

    So while it is not impossible that a preteen or young teen could feel sexual desire for an older man, the law is set up to avoid the fairly large chance that there is something else going on.

    And yeah, it’s the older person’s — man’s in the case — responsibility. You say: “Why does it have to be the man’s fault when it’s not up to him but the woman in the first place?” Because when one party is 35 and the other 14, guess who needs to take the responsibility? Esp given his known history of other sex suits by underage girls.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶

25. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ YamYam–”that some younger women WANT to know about love and sex. It’s as if people actually think that the Lolita is just a movie character. It’s so naive. It’s a practical draconian fundamentalist mindset to think that no woman under the legal age of consent ever actually desires older men absolutely. Why does it have to be the man’s fault when it’s not up to him but the woman in the first place?”

    First of all, friend, the operative word is woman, defined as an “adult female.” IMO, one of the hallmarks of adulthood is the idea of being able to freely give consent and being able to take care of the responsibility of that consent. When is consent *only* the responsibility of the woman? Are you saying men aren’t or cannot be responsible for their own sexual agency?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:36 pm ¶

26. Sarah wrote:

    This isn’t directly related to the R. Kelly case, but does speak to stereotypes of hyper sexual Black women.

    A friend of mine who lives in a predominantly Black area saw an advertisement for DNA testing. It featured a Black man holding a white baby with the headline “Any doubts?” Which led my friend to remark on “the rampant promiscuity of that community.” This was of course prefaced by the comment “I’m not a racist but…”

    I’m trying to think how to best respond to her without losing my shit. If anybody has any suggestions…

    But am I the only one who thinks an ad like that suggests that any woman who has had more than one sexual partner is devious and not to be trusted?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶

27. YamYam wrote:

    @Latoya

    I’ve read the entries and I still think what you are implying is that there can not be a respectful, loving relationship between a man who is much, much older and a women who is below the age of consent, which is false. I’m not saying that it is a general and popular truth, but it is not completely fallible and should not be demonized at all (which it is being throughout the comments above, the general media, and a popular culture concensus). I believe this is a personal freedom, for both sexes, that is being infringed.

    My father for instance met my mother, when she was sixteen and they’ve been together for thirty six years and they will be until they die. The director of the movie I mentioned below, Luc Besson, met his girlfriend when he made the movire when she was 11! and she talks about her feelings about it in a features commentary on the DVD.

    @ Persia

    I was referring to the notion of the Lolita, not the book (which I have not read) which is an artistic archetype, that I have seen in movies such as “Léon the Professional.”

    I am not defending R. Kelly. If that wasn’t clear from my initial comment I’ll reiterate. He does not champion respect for women in anyway; that he ended up in court in a situation to be criminalized for the personal practices of his sexuality is nothing to protest about. You might even say it’s karmic.

    I understand the point that young women have not developed the skills to keep males at bay, and it’s valid, but that can never be analyzed in court impartially.

    What I am saying is that gender imbalance isn’t mended through the justice system; this actually creates an even greater imbalance. Predatorial relationships should not be a matter of the court system, especially when the plaintiff doesn’t even want to be part of the case. Trial court systems will never work that way.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 12:59 pm ¶

28. Persia wrote:

    The Catholic priest pedophile scandal featured boy victims, because those are the victims that could get a hearing. There were plenty of girl victims who never got a hearing or never even bothered to reveal their abuse to anyone, simply because they wouldn’t have been believed and would have been slut-shamed.

    IIRC there was a significant amount of (female) victim-blaming in the records that the Globe got hold of.

    A friend of mine who lives in a predominantly Black area saw an advertisement for DNA testing. It featured a Black man holding a white baby with the headline “Any doubts?” Which led my friend to remark on “the rampant promiscuity of that community.” This was of course prefaced by the comment “I’m not a racist but…”

    Yowtch. My suggestion would be to note the prevalance of DNA-testing ads in white-male-oriented magazines such as Maxim. Depending on how well you know your friend and her, er, lifestyle, you could talk about how she’d like to be judged in the same position– what if it was an ad with a white man and a black baby?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:03 pm ¶

29. YamYam wrote:

    @ The Cruel Secretary

    It’s always been my understanding that women are ALWAYS in the driver’s seat when it comes to choosing when and who to love, but I’m sure that’s only my personal perspective. Of course that’s because I’m a man and I’ve never broken someone’s heart.

    That’s where that comes from.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:05 pm ¶

30. YamYam wrote:

    I’d like to add to my last post, that men have no sexual agency. That’s why patriarchy exists, beacause men had to invent something that isn’t real to take real power: the power that females hold primordially - the will to make sex real.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶

31. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I still think what you are implying is that there can not be a respectful, loving relationship between a man who is much, much older and a women who is below the age of consent, which is false. I’m not saying that it is a general and popular truth, but it is not completely fallible and should not be demonized at all (which it is being throughout the comments above, the general media, and a popular culture concensus). I believe this is a personal freedom, for both sexes, that is being infringed.

    @YamYam -

    I cannot speak to your parents relationship, or the other historical examples of May-December relationships.

    However, the key to this part is here:

    there can not be a respectful, loving relationship between a man who is much, much older and a women who is below the age of consent

    Generally speaking, these kinds of relationships are not loving, they are abusive. I am sure if the majority of these relationships were like the ones your parents enjoy, we would not have these laws in place. But we do, in large part because youth is attractive and youth is easily manipulated.

    As many people do not approach *adult* relationships with respect, it stands to reason that the most vulnerable members of our society should be shielded from jumping into something they can’t handle.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶

32. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @YamYam -

    That’s why patriarchy exists, beacause men had to invent something that isn’t real to take real power: the power that females hold primordially - the will to make sex real.

    So how do you explain rape? As a piece of the imaginary patriarchy?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶

33. YamYam wrote:

    @ Latoya

    If you are not celebrating historical evidence of older/younger relationships you are only touting your own personal biases, and ineffectively I might add, because the whole point of a discussion such as this is to operate on an impartial level, promoting arguments based on objective evidence rather than self-enclosed beliefs.

    # 2

    Rape, like any act of random violence is not an ideological construct. It is an instinctual act. There’s no such thing as first degree rape. Rape has no material value to the criminal because he doesn’t keep anything nor gain anything from his victim; everything he puts into it is expended after the act. People murder over money and material possessions. The rapist never gets to possess anything. The rapist doesn’t come from any traditional or conventional human value, because human (and I mean human and not otherwise) male sexuality does not originate from a rational conscious possessive value.

    I believe that in its early stages, very early, nascent humanity was matriarchal.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:26 pm ¶

34. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ YamYam–forgive me for saying this, but what kind of smoove-jazz, quiet-storm statement is this:

    “It’s always been my understanding that women are ALWAYS in the driver’s seat when it comes to choosing when and who to love, but I’m sure that’s only my personal perspective. Of course that’s because I’m a man and I’ve never broken someone’s heart.”

    What in good heaven’s name does that have to do with a man being an adult and taking responsibility for his consenting to sex and being clear about what kind of sex he wants to have with his partner, and what kinds of sexual compromises he and his partner agree to–a partner who is of an age to fully consent to having sex. A loving relationship is a context in which to have sex; so is a one-night stand.

    And love and sex aren’t the same things, YamYam. You can love someone and not have sex with the person (i.e. a crush on a celebrity) and have sex without loving the person (i.e. a “friend with benefits”).

    Also, to say that one gender is ALWAYS responsible when it comes to love–as if the other has none–is such an abdication and the utter antithesis of being an adult. And what exactly does being a man have to do with the capacity of breaking someone’s heart? I’ve dated men who’ve broken my heart, just I’ve dated men and broke their heart. Adults break each others’ hearts. All the time.

    So, yes, YamYam, it is *your*perspective.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:44 pm ¶

35. Persia wrote:

    TCS:

    Also, to say that one gender is ALWAYS responsible when it comes to love–as if the other has none–is such an abdication and the utter antithesis of being an adult.

    Yes, exactly! Love is not a one-way street. Consensual sex is not a one-way street. (But there are also times when consent is compromised, like when a partner is impaired or– you got it!– underage.)

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶

36. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @YamYam -

    So, I just had a quick discussion with some of the other women who run this site and we have decided to ban you.

    Your comments are deeply unsettling on many different levels. While we are not a feminist site, specifically, that kind of attitude and mentality are not welcome here.

    In general, our site is accepting to activities that occur between consenting adults. Not in terms of people who cannot give consent. And there is no defending rape or prettying up the process, that does not fly here.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:48 pm ¶

37. SarahMC wrote:

    Stop peddling completely bogus gender stereotypes, YamYam.
    Sex is not a commodity given to men by women (let alone girls). It’s a partnered (or group) activity.
    Women “always” choose when and whom to love? What? Step outside yourself for a minute and realize that you are way off-base here. Women don’t choose whom they love any more than men do. Men and women are both in control of their ACTIONS. Your penis does not absolve you of responsibility, dude. Just ’cause you’ve never broken anyone’s heart (that you know of) doesn’t mean girls and women don’t get their hearts broken. Are you kidding?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶

38. Chris wrote:

    @Yam Yam:

    Whoa. Seriously. Whoa.

    In response to the rape comment: rape is a crime simply because it harms somebody and affects their ability to live and prosper peacefully at their own will. It’s the same reason why theft, assault, and murder are crimes.

    By your logic, murdering a man who had murdered your child would not be aas serious as murdering him for $5.

    Besides, the rapist does possess something, he or she possesses power over the individual both during and after the act. The victim, however, is left powerless and psychologically damaged, as well as physically harmed in some cases.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶

39. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ YamYam–”If you are not celebrating historical evidence of older/younger relationships you are only touting your own personal biases, and ineffectively I might add, because the whole point of a discussion such as this is to operate on an impartial level, promoting arguments based on objective evidence rather than self-enclosed beliefs.”

    …so, let me get this straight: if Latoya isn’t agreeing with *your* opinion about May-December relationships, then she’s “touting biases?” Friend, are you for real?

    And as for your statement: “The rapist never gets to possess anything. The rapist doesn’t come from any traditional or conventional human value, because human (and I mean human and not otherwise) male sexuality does not originate from a rational conscious possessive value.”

    Being a woman who survived a rape, YamYam, I absolutely disagree with you. What the rapist takes isn’t tangible, like a watch or money, what s/he takes as s/he uses the victim as a personal cum rag is the person’s humanity and sense of self, that the person’s body and sexuality isn’t hers or his to give as a person of free will. It takes an extraordinarily long time for the victim to heal from what the violator did.

    And this: “…because human (and I mean human and not otherwise) male sexuality does not originate from a rational conscious possessive value.”

    And, thus, male sexuality is irrational and uncontrollable. Being a woman, I’m insulted because your reasoning suggests that it’s my fault if I’m not always on “man patrol,” as if my purpose in life is to control some dude’s raging sexuality. And if I was a dude, I’d be insulted because this reasoning states that I’m not even a sexual being capable of free will–all I am is a raging d***.

    What a way to stereotype, YamYam.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 2:10 pm ¶

40. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    Latoya–thank you for the ban, friend. Seriously, my hands were itching or a chair….

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 2:12 pm ¶

41. gatamala wrote:

    Yam Yam was freaking me out. I’m sorry you had to read that TCS.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 2:35 pm ¶

42. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Gatamala, TCS -

    Thanks y’all. I was freaking out too, but y’all know I am really sensitive about these kinds of issues. I had to hit the committee on this one.

    Good to know I wasn’t the only one getting that feeling.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 2:38 pm ¶

43. newbein wrote:

    This is unbelievable!
    This is a damn shame. This is one of the reasons why teenage pregnancy is so high in the black community. Grown ass black men are taking advantage of our young girls and the adults who should be protecting these girls say it’s ok. It is against the law to have sex with children. Children can not give consent, there is no such thing as consensual sex with a minor. Stop making excuses for these sick, vile men. This kind of shit is happening every day in the black community and it needs to stop. It is not ok for predators to take advantage of our children. Stop defending what you know is wrong. You are wrong for blaming a child for a grown ass man taking advantage of her. There are laws to protect children, because they are prone to bad judgment. This bastard preyed on the weakness of a child. To all you men out there; don’t think if you’re fucking young girls, you’ll have the same outcome.

    Stay tuned, he will molest again.
    This man has a history of molesting young girls. Sooner or later he will get caught again and end up in jail where he belong.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶

44. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ gatamala–yeah, I’m having a moment, but I’ll calm down, friend.

    ::TCS hugs gatamala, Latoya, and the committee and blows kisses to the rest of the commenters–except for jed and YamYam, natch.::

    @ newbein–I feel your fury, friend. And, unfortunately, what you said is right in too, too many cases. Another silence in some Black communities. But–and not to derail the thread–what you said about grown-ass men impregnating young women under the age of 18 does bring up the ideas of what being “grown” means in Black communities as far as exercising sexual/reproductive agency. Perhaps another day, another post…

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶

45. holls wrote:

    Am I the only one who thinks that PARENTS are also culpable in a situation like this?

    How hard is it really to keep a 13 year old from engaging in filmed water sports with an adult, any adult, let alone a famous one?
    Thirteen is still WELL under parental control, especially if the parents have done their job properly prior to that.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 3:39 pm ¶

46. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ holls–friend, that goes without saying. Or so you’d think, right? Again, parents are the adults in the situation, just like the grown-ass men tryna get with these young girls. And parents *should* be the main adults educating these young women about a healthy, consenting sexuality instead of having a head-in-the-sand, keep-ya-draws-up, or use-yours-to-get-yours approach to sex and sexuality.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 3:59 pm ¶

47. Alexandra wrote:

    I’m late to this discussion and I definitely have to say was disgusted by the verdict and the at Essence comments. I don’t think those comments are just ignorant but they are dangerous. This mindset makes it hard for black girls and women to get justice if they have been violated and/or abused. I bet that’s part of the reason the girl said that’s not her in her tape because of this reasoning. If are own community demonizes these girls what’s everyone else going to say.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶

48. Joseph wrote:

    Hm.

    I’m an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse.

    I’ll give you a minute with that.
    We good? Okay…I just wanted to cosign TCS (#39) and offer solidarity to a fellow survivor.

    @TCS:
    It took guts to be that eloquent about something so personal. You spoke for me just then. Thank you.

    I am proof that it is possible to live a happy, well-adjusted, unapologetically sexual adult life when you have been raped as a child. However, as TCS indicated, once you have been made into an object you never forget it. It is terrible knowledge but it does give you a pretty damn good nose for bullshit around issues of consent.

    Which is why I think survivors (and I’m not speaking for TCS here, this is my opinion) have extraordinary clarity about power expressed in sexual terms. I have almost exactly no judgment about the consensual sexual lives of other people. If R. Kelly wants to pee on his partners and they are down with it I don’t care, even though I find the thought of that activity very un-sexy in terms of my own life.

    And if he had asked his of-age lovers to dress as schoolgirls and call him “daddy” I would have no problem with that either. Kink is pretty self-selecting, there is a lid for every pot (which is sort of heartwarming when you think about it). So my assumption would be that a young woman who chose a sexual relationship with R. Kelly would have some stake in it (sexual or financial–not my place to judge). But a girl of 13–no matter how sexually turned on–is not in a position to truly offer that consent. And suggesting that she is, is dangerous.

    I understand–and applaud–a pro-sex argument. I think sex is a good, powerful force in the universe, which is not expressed the same way for everyone. Forcing consenting adults to comply with sexual norms is the source of a lot of (I think) unnecessary heart ache. But any argument that seeks to minimize the importance of consent (which is defined legally in the US through age-of-consent laws) is suspicious and should be challenged.

    I’m glad Racialicious reacted as it did when that was being argued. Thank you.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 4:25 pm ¶

49. Anonymous wrote:

    It makes me SICK when I hear black people defending him. Regardless of if she was “fast” or not, it’s very easy to take advantage of a teenage girl, especially one who is looking for love anywhere.

    @whatever15 :

    I second that WTF. Since when is a black man who committed a crime getting off karma for a black man who committed a crime getting off?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 4:37 pm ¶

50. Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

    I thought that parents were legally and financially responsible for their kids. When it came out that it was their kid NOTHING happened to them?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:04 pm ¶

51. sonia wrote:

    I just read a very very similar post over at Womanist Musings.
    http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/06/rkelly-should-join-flds.html

    I’d like to cut and paste MY comments from that the thread there..

    I find it fairly annoying that you use a comment thread from an article to show that black people supported R.Kelly. (They might have or might not have. I have no idea, but your post sure doesn’t convince me.)

    And the following is my response to the blogger’s response.

    Womanist Musings Blogger: 1. “if you look at commentary on this story on the internet you will find the same sort of thing repeated over and over again, and that implies a consensus of thought.”

    My Response: My point is.. no it does not “imply a consensus of thought”. At all. This is not an obligatory “not everyone thinks this” disclaimer. I am saying it does not represent in any measure any solid support from the black community. There are many reasons why I think this, but the most obvious being, we have no idea whether these commentators are black or not.

    Womanist Musings: “Just like OJ black people supported R.Kelly because he is rich and famous.”

    My Response: I don’t know about you, but I am tired of hearing that black people make choices and have opinions for all the wrong reasons. My point with “believing in innocent until proven guilty” was that there are legitimate, perfectly rationale reasons for black support of R.Kelly that you could feasibly point to. They do exist. It’s not simply “he is rich and famous” or even “he is black”.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:08 pm ¶

52. sonia wrote:

    “And if those claims weren’t enough, Carey also says R. is bisexual (”He in the closet for real,” Carey said on” Hot 97).”

    WTF. Anyone else have that reaction? I guess the bisexuality was the last straw? hmm..

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:12 pm ¶

53. G.K. wrote:

    Latoya (or Ms. Peterson) I’m glad you banned this YamYam character, because some of what he was saying was really pissing me off–especially that comment claiming “Rape, like any act of random violence is not an ideological construct. It is an instinctual act,” or “Men have no sexual agency.” I’m reading this and I’m like, basically what he’s saying is that rape is perfectly okay and that men are animals who don’t have enough sense to stay away from young girls because thay have no “sexual agency,” whatever the hell that means. Obviously,this idiot isn’t living in the real world, and just because his parents’ reletionship turned out fine is cool, but that’s not even near the norm for most relationships of that type.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:17 pm ¶

54. whatever15 wrote:

    I had the WTF moment too Sonia. Forget to comment about that. This is the same school of thought that believe that gay individuals shouldn’t be around children because “they can’t control themselves”. Funny thing is that according to Yam Yam hetero men may not be able to control themselves either.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:22 pm ¶

55. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph -

    Thank you for sharing, I know it’s hard. I appreciate your words.

    @Sonia - Do you listen to black radio? Get dispatches from BET? Do you remember when R. Kelly was married to Aaliyah? This conversation has been going on for a LONG time…and the same defenses haven’t changed. There isn’t an R. Kelly poll out, but my bet is that most people don’t support R. Kelly. (Or even give a flying fuck about him.) But it is disturbing just how many people see fit to call into radio stations and post on blogs/articles and exonerate any wrongdoing of R.Kelly because they like his music.

    Full stop there.

    If you don’t think he did it, that’s one thing.

    But saying “Well, even if he did it, I don’t care because his music was good and the girl was fast anyway”? That doesn’t strike you as something deeply fucked up?

    Re: Trapped in the closet - I think his brother was just throwing out anything he thought would spark a reaction. It is interesting though how being bi was the icing on the cake AFTER molest and spousal abuse.

    @Kirk/TCS/Holls -

    Actually, that’s a good question. I reviewed a few different posts and articles before I made this post, and only one referenced the parents beyond “they should be ashamed.” They said the family was divided as to whether or not it was their girl on the tape, with the family splitting half and half. But, as far as I know, there has been no family statement issued. Anyone have one?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶

56. whatever15 wrote:

    Latoya, “But it is disturbing just how many people see fit to call into radio stations and post on blogs/articles and exonerate any wrongdoing of R.Kelly because they like his music.”

    I refer to that as the Polanski Pass. If you’re talented it seems like some people will forget even the most horrid transgressions. I think there’s even a documentary out, soon to be aired on HBO that shows Polanski’s case in a fair light, like there was any other side to the story. I believe that the girl he molested exonerated him and said that his genius excuses his actions or some crap like that.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:33 pm ¶

57. jas wrote:

    i live about 20 minutes from R kelli and whether its on the street or black radio MANY people think justice was served. Personally ive seen more blacks celebrating the verdict than condeming it.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 5:36 pm ¶

58. sfsinger wrote:

    I was scrolling through the comments and just about had a melt-down. Thanks for the ban because that was just ridiculous. I suspect that person was abused or may have abused someone and has not dealt with it appropriately. I also don’t think anyone has spoken to the young woman from the premise that she has been abused. It’s really sad and perhaps she thinks she’s empowered because she accepted money and has a quasi-acceptance of it - as well because her family did nothing to protect her. That man has abused many young girls and perhaps even his own children. His estranged wife was making excuses for him in Essence magazine a few months ago. I suggest we all think of ways to take action i.e contacting radio stations, his record label, etc to lodge our complaints and plan for boycotts.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 6:00 pm ¶

59. sfsinger wrote:

    And let’s add the entire polygamy situation to this conversation as well. We saw how the state of Texas returned all of those children back to that cess pool without impunity. I’d like to be tolerant of ‘religion’ but not the abuse of it for the sake of controlling women and children and abusing them through lack of choice and education amongst other things.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 6:03 pm ¶

60. jen* wrote:

    LP - I get totally nervous when the ban gets played, but as I read through the comments, I was hoping the Yam would get it.

    Even now the words keep going through my mind: ‘It is an instinctual act’

    That phrase is terrifying to me. That there are probably many more who subscribe to a belief system anywhere similar to this is unconscionable.

    I’m glad you guys covered the R. Kelly verdict, cuz I was livid when I heard the result. S’pose I feel like many others, in that I truly expected him to go to prison. There never seemed to be any doubt that he had done what he was accused of, so how did this happen?

    My sister pointed out his choice of monikers a few years ago, as he dubbed himself “the Pied Piper”. It seems nothing more than bragging about his involvement with under-aged girls. I just hope no one has the gall to defend him to me. I’m tired of it all, and I may just go off.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 7:08 pm ¶

61. eric daniels wrote:

    I would have given R. Kelly 20 YEARS and then some, this idiot has molested teenaged girls going back 18 years. It’s ironic Aaron Mc Gruder’s “The Boondocks” got it right and people would excuse this pedophille’s behavior. I can understand A.A. feeling under assault by whites and others but protecting criminals under the guise of ‘racial unity’ only makes things worse and it shows we don’t care about young black girls and women.

    I may challenge Black feminist hypocrisy but I do not want any child male or female molested by a monster like Kelly and supported by African- Americans who are too blind to by their victimization to see the reality of a true monster.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 7:11 pm ¶

62. aquarianbrass wrote:

    Yeah,
    Real open to dialogue.
    Latoya, do you ban everyone who doesn’t tow the line?
    BTW, I find it troubling to suggest that somehow a fifteen year old lacks the ability to give consent.
    I for one don’t think that adolescents lack any less moral responsibility than a so-called “adult” . The concept of adult and adolescent are wholly informed by culture. I guess those 16 year olds successfully commanding Armies(like alexander the great) societies were just incapable.
    Its our western culture that tells “kids” that they are incapable of agency and that they don’t have to be responsible for their choices and actions and propagate this invented concept of the “right to a childhood” (what is childhood really)
    Since time immemoriable children have been doing what had to be done in order for their families and societies to thrive and sustain itself. I know of many young folk who had to make moral decisions that many “adults” would never want to make or are simply incapable of making. “Adulthood” doesn’t all of sudden free one from moral midgethood.
    Adolscents are nearly as capable as any “adult” if you give them that sense that they are capable and bestow responsibilty upon them.
    I guess in this culture we just keep extending childhood further and further up. Thats why we have the “tweeners”.

    As far as R.Kelly, well if he broke the law he should have gone to prison.
    And as far as the girl, I’m not saying that by giving her agency and responsiblity we should punish her but we shouldn’t be quick to remove her ability to say no and just assume she was any more manipulated than some other groupie seduced by the fame and fortune. We really don’t know their situation but I fail to see how its much different than some older 18 year groupie(like 18 magically makes you an “adult) like that “woman” who had a threesome with the girl and Kelly who is just as culpable.

    Making people responsible is not necessarily blaming the “victim”. And she may not see herself as a victim. We, as a society are positioning her as one.
    I guess the fact that this is sex makes it “special”. I can think of many reasons why our society (and should) frowns on sex between older men and younger women but they are not founded on anything “natural” or “given”. Our socio-economic structure and the expectations we have of young people has more to do with it rather than some “natural” moral order.
    In other cultures, they may have focused on the fact that they weren’t married rather than the age difference.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 7:15 pm ¶

63. Yvette wrote:

    Not sure if this has already been mentioned:
    http://jelanicobb.com/content/view/39/27/
    “Statement of Black Men Against the Exploitation of Black Women ”

    In the post there is a link to a petition you can sign.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:27 pm ¶

64. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    ::TCS gives Joseph a kiss on the forehead::

    Thank you, and you’re welcome.

    And I agree with you on this:
    “Which is why I think survivors (and I’m not speaking for TCS here, this is my opinion) have extraordinary clarity about power expressed in sexual terms.”

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:31 pm ¶

65. Jess wrote:

    We don’t just ask this about artists. We ask it about politicians and all kinds of people who do things that are horrible but might leave the world with something else that’s ok.

    @whatever15:

    I think that few people would give Polanski a “pass.” That is, I have never heard anyone defending what he did.

    Now, there’s a whole other discussion about whether you can separate the work someone does from stuff like that. We tend to associate the pass with art, but let’s look at it this way: if Polanski were a bricklayer, who made the best walls in the country, would they suddenly not be the best anymore because of what he did?

    Thomas Jefferson raped his slave Sally Hemmings. But does that make all his writings worthless? I hope not, or we’re in trouble.

    That’s what makes people like Polanski interesting at all. When I say that I am not saying what he did was good, or ok, or whatever– it was statutory rape. full stop.

    But that doesn’t change the work he did. Which was by most standards pretty damned good.

    R. Kelly isn’t an artist of that caliber, anyway, But it is interesting that we have this weird attitude about art and artists that doesn’t apply to bricklayers.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:51 pm ¶

66. Jess wrote:

    @whatever15:
    I think that few people would give Polanski a “pass.” That is, I have never heard anyone defending what he did.

    Now, there’s a whole other discussion about whether you can separate the work someone does from stuff like that. We tend to associate the pass with art, but let’s look at it this way: if Polanski were a bricklayer, who made the best walls in the country, would they suddenly not be the best anymore because of what he did?

    We don’t just ask this about artists. We ask it about politicians and all kinds of people who do things that are horrible but might leave the world with something else that’s ok.

    Thomas Jefferson raped his slave Sally Hemmings. But does that make all his writings worthless? I hope not, or we’re in trouble.

    That’s what makes people like Polanski interesting at all. When I say that I am not saying what he did was good, or ok, or whatever– it was statutory rape. full stop.

    But that doesn’t change the work he did. Which was by most standards pretty damned good.

    R. Kelly isn’t an artist of that caliber, anyway, But it is interesting that we have this weird attitude about art and artists that doesn’t apply to bricklayers.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 8:53 pm ¶

67. Yvette wrote:

    I can think of many reasons why our society [can] (and should) frown on sex between older men and younger women but they are not founded on anything “natural” or “given”.

    aquarianbrass, you are sure to hear it from many folks, but you are absolutely correct. However, I am not sure many here are saying here that there is something at the basic or core wrong with sex between legal adults and legal (but post pubertal) “children.” This is about societal norms, and what society has decided it will accept in order to protect its more vulnerable members. And Kelly and adults like him are fully aware of these norms.

    The idea that such norms are not “natural” (in the meaning of existing apart from human societies) is a strange defense to me. Why do we not employ it in other cases? For example, assuming someone eats meat, why would they object to cooking and eating their family pet, after the pet has died of natural causes? What about their recently deceased grandmother? What about their own limb after it has been amputated at the hospital?

    Prescriptions about what constitutes “pet” versus “meat,” and under what circumstances we should eat others of our species (or ourselves) are entirely societally- (and, often, time-) based. Yet they are just as real, just as important as “natural” laws.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:02 pm ¶

68. whatever15 wrote:

    Jess, some people have given Polanski a pass, one example of this is the HBO documentary. Also, people aren’t diminishing the work its excusing the behavior of said artist that is dangerous. This sort of thinking reduces the people that are hurt to human currency.

    I might add, that you may not think R Kelly is not a genius, but there are many people who believe that he is. Determining whether he is of Polanski’s caliber is moot. Once again its people’s admiration of their talents and the subsequent justification of their crimes is what is troubling. I am NOT judging their artist contributions only their criminal actions.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:08 pm ¶

69. Whitney wrote:

    When will we stop blaming women (and girls) for being raped?

    I am sick and tired of men not being held accountable for their actions. If you are unsure of a girl or woman’s age, DON’T HAVE SEX WITH HER.

    It’s like we’re saying that a man’s hormones are more important than the victim.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:08 pm ¶

70. Yvette wrote:

    Also, aquarianbrass, w/r/t/: Our socio-economic structure and the expectations we have of young people has more to do with it rather than some “natural” moral order.

    Note that the same thing replies to previous generation’s/other cultures’ expectations and norms for young people. For example prior acceptance of older men taking very young mates had to do with things such as the ability to provide for a family (for the men) and health, fitness, and probable childbearing capacity in light of low life expectancy (for the women). There was nothing “natural” necessarily about these kinds of previous arrangements either.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 9:18 pm ¶

71. Joseph wrote:

    @TCS
    I’ll take that.

    @Latoya
    Thank you, but it wasn’t so hard: there is a reason we call ourselves “survivors,” we are tough as hell. (Right TCS?) The “victims” are dead. Or on their way. Remains to be seen which way the girl in this video will go.

    You can’t tell by looking at someone they have had their humanity challenged in this profound way. There is no outward sign. So if this young woman seems fine, even to herself, it proves nothing. I reacted to my abuse by, I think the term is, “fucking everything that moves” in my twenties. In guys this is not considered a warning sign, but for me it was. At the same time I completely avoided intimacy of any kind–also not exactly a red flag in a young man. Anyone looking at me from the outside would think I was just fine too. But I wasn’t. My point is there is no way to know what is going on inside this girl–or how she will feel in a year, or five, or ten…

    She’ll carry this until the day she decides to set it down. But in order to do that she has to acknowledge that it happened in the first place. I don’t envy her dealing with all of this while the world watches.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:23 pm ¶

72. aquarianbrass wrote:

    I wonder, how would people feel if the age of consent was moved up to 21, the legal age to consume alcohol?
    What does this age of consent mean?
    What do we base the line at 18 on?
    Is it a coincidence that it corresponds with the age most graduate from high school?

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:44 pm ¶

73. Keke wrote:

    Giving a free pass to a pedophile is not helping the African American community. It harms everyone and sends the message that as long as it’s a Black girl, you can get away with it. I’m tired of seeing these young girls in my area impregnated by men twice their ages and then some. I’m tired of people making excuses like “Well, they shouldn’t be out there, then.” No. These GROWN MEN should know better.

    Many of these young girls are definitely looking for love and acceptance and it’s up to those who are older to push them in a better direction.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:50 pm ¶

74. yazikus wrote:

    @ aquarianbrass

    The trial was not to decide to raise or lower the age of consent.
    A law was broken (if the allegations were true).
    That is all.
    Also, I am just guessing here, but you are a man, no? and also older than 18?
    Because really, only an older man would hold the point of view that 15 year old girls are complete adults ready to consent to sex with older men.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 10:52 pm ¶

75. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    ::grabs chair again::

    Christ on a bloody crutch! aquarianbrass, what part of 30-something R. Kelly fucking–and I’ll include water sports as part of that fucking–a *13-year-old* aren’t you getting?!?!? Not a 15-year-old–even though I can’t excuse his grown ass if he did that, too–but a young person barely into her teen years?

    The “time immemorial” argument fails, IMO, because it does not include the idea that societies *change.* We are not living in an agrarian society with a life span of 40 years, the infant mortality rate was high, and an older man marrying and impregnating a 13- or 14-year-old made some sort of sense because of the potential fertility time span may guarantee some children who may survive long enough to take care of the parents and the land. We live in a post-industrial society where having lots of children makes little sense, we live a hell of lot longer, and we do have some sort of non-familial social net for the elderly–not the best, mind you.

    Thus, the idea around sexuality and fertility changes, too, namely that we can prolong marriage and having children and that adulthood, today’s social and legal standards, starts at 18. (Not a magical age, though it feels that way when one is, say, 16 and living with one’s parent or legal guardian.) And is by today’s standards that the courts decided to press charges against R.Kelly. It is by today’s standards about 13-year-olds, like Latoya saying that 13-year-olds may not get the full ramifications about seduction and sexual relationships–including having lived through that age and having some hindsight about where our heads were at when we were that age–that, I suspect, quite a few commenters may be coming from.

    Also, aquarianbrass, this is a blog–as any blog, if I’m not maistaken, where the moderators/editors/publishers/owners have the right to set the standards for dialogue, including what they feel comfortable with. A blog isn’t a free-speech zone for you, aquarianbrass.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:11 pm ¶

76. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Joseph–tough as bloody nails…and then some.

    And sometimes we survivors can be tough to our own detriment, when we may not realize that the defense mechanisms we’ve developed due to our violation–like avoiding intimacy–are not helping us become full human beings.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:26 pm ¶

77. Kaonashi wrote:

    If you lived in Chicago from the late 80s on and have had contact with ANY of the industry people here you would KNOW that R Kelly has been doing this sort of crap for YEARS before he got charged. The Sun-times article that the author was subpoenaed over didn’t cover HALF of his bullshit. Let’s put it this way; this man needs to be UNDER the jail and the reason why he is not is because people are more than willing to give him a pass because he is R. Kelly.

    I’m so tired of people excusing grown ass men and women preying on young people by saying that the kids “asked for it” or “wanted it.” I see 13-15 year boys looking like hot grown men every single day. Does that give me license to fuck them? NO. Wanna know why? Because I’m an ADULT. The onus is always on the adult to act responsible in these situations; even if the teen is acting inappropriately.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:35 pm ¶

78. waxghost wrote:

    I don’t think we should be laying any blame on the girl’s parents. They may not have known anything was happening or have dealt with the idea that something MIGHT be happening with denial. (I experienced this when I was almost molested by the son of friends of my family; both family’s response to my utter fear that it actually would happen was to mostly treat me like I was overreacting.) I imagine the impulse to disbelieve is even stronger with someone who is famous and therefore idolized. Plus, I feel like this lets R. Kelly off the hook again, and no one should take the blame but the person who did it.

    Posted 17 Jun 2008 at 11:54 pm ¶

79. Joseph wrote:

    @TCS
    Hell yeah…that is the bitch of it, you shut down in order to survive and then in order to get past it you have open up again. So surviving is learning to stop doing the thing that saved your life. Helps to know you aren’t the only one, doesn’t it?

    Re: the “natural” argument
    Murder is perfectly natural. But it’s illegal for all sorts of good reasons. (So you should probably put down that chair).

    As far as I’m concerned teenagers can fuck each other as much as they want (as long as they play safe) but adults don’t get to fuck them.

    Or, you know, piss all over them.

    Octogalore said it perfectly (way up at #17) “There’s a difference between hormones and readiness, and the age-of-consent concept is an effective although necessarily imperfect way of dealing with that. The responsibility is on the older partner to respect that and comply.”

    Why is that so hard to understand?

    And, more importantly, what is the point of arguing the opposite?

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:05 am ¶

80. aquarianbrass wrote:

    Well,
    Cruel Secretary, maybe you missed my point a bit because you just made it for me.
    The point was that our idea that a 30 year old and 13 year old(I didn’t realize she was 13.) should not have sexual relations maybe culturally determined and does not necessarily come from some naturally or objectively determined law. In certain contexts a 15 year old adolescent having sexual relations with a 30 year old man is acceptable, but usually marriage is involved and the woman/girl has been trained and prepared to be a married woman and mother and the man waited so long to marry because it would have be necessary for him to accumulate wealth and status before he can take on a bride. In this regard I doubt it constitutes abuse especially since the 15 is seen by herself and the society at large as being a grown woman.
    I made that point because much of the dialogue on here seemed to make that assumption that its “unnatural” (this concept always gets me heapin hoppin mad. Its used to justify so many baseless freefalling positions. I don’t like the word “natural” either). If you are going to convince all those R. Kelly supporters that what he did was wrong you’ll have to mount more than simply scream that its wrong and sick because to some people it may not be obviously so. And I think it should be pointed out that adolescents in this society are expected to be immature children and thus there are certain activities that we don’t expect them to engage in and this is tied to the fact that we in the West have extended the growth, development and education periods that one goes through before fully entering the economy.
    In other societies an adolescent is expected to be mature and take on the responsibilities of an adult. (many third world agricultural societies, that we often look down upon and pass judgment against)

    @yazikus
    “Because really, only an older man would hold the point of view that 15 year old girls are complete adults ready to consent to sex with older men.”

    Well, you make some assumptions here. First, it seems a lot of people who are not older men hold the point of view that you assume I’ve adopted, including all those women whose voices were displayed at the beginning of this blogpost.

    Second, the idea of a “complete” adult is subjective and substanceless. What exactly is a complete adult. One who has stopped physically growing? One who has just about completed their life, lying on their death bed recounting all their life experiences to the night nurse. Or is it someone who is a legal adult and thus an adult solely due to the number of years they’ve lived on this planet as determined by some calender constructed in the middle ages?
    Thoughout AFrica, one isn’t an adult until they complete certain tasks and go through iniation rites. If they fail they’ll never enjoy the full priveledges of adulthood. In this case, calendar age is a moot point.
    But,what exactly what does a 15 year old intrinsicly lack that an 18 year old possesses that the former are incapable of consenting to another?
    Well,as one who was once 15, at that time in my life I was definitely capable of making the same moral decisions that an 18 year old was, many who were as confused and directionless as any puppy whose lost his master
    I’m assuming that most people here believe that there is some power dynamic between so-called grown folks and adolescents that prevents any sort of equitable sexual relationship from developing. You may be right, but this inequality is present between many peoples whose relationships are often seen as normal or acceptable. Hell, in a sexist society one can argue that hetersexual relationships are always going to involve some inequity. I guess the question is how much inequity is allowed before the relationship becomes problematic. Btw, I’m not being facetious or trying to throw a straw man out there.
    I think the power relations that make the relationship between the young woman/girl and R. Kelly so unseemly to our minds are worth discussing.
    And a discussion of what distinguishes an adolescent from an adult can be had without condoning Mr. Kelly’s actions in any way.

    Btw, please comment in response what i’ve written and not to the opinions you imagine I hold yet have never stated.

    For the record, I don’t support R. Kelly and think he is guilty but its not my place to convict the guy that was the jury’s.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:29 am ¶

81. Mary wrote:

    I am sick and tired of men not being held accountable for their actions. If you are unsure of a girl or woman’s age, DON’T HAVE SEX WITH HER.

    It’s like we’re saying that a man’s hormones are more important than the victim.
    

    The “but men have NEEDS” argument, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    It honestly blows me away when a man puts forth the argument that men just cannot control themselves or their hormones… this is a more sociopathic, dismal view of the male gender than “the man-hating feminists” supposedly put forward.

    Don’t other MEN find these views deeply misandrist?

    And if you really, truly accept the premise that men have NEEDS and can’t help violating other human beings to achieve them, shouldn’t you also believe that men need to be kenneled and muzzled and only allowed to interact with greater society under strict chaperoning?

    Obviously this is an absurd conclusion - because it stems from an absurd premise. Either you are a sane adult who’s able to control himself in the presence of a THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL, or you are not.

    P.S. I had missed the part of the story where R. Kelly was willing to throw his brother under the bus for statutory rape charges. W T F.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 7:26 am ¶

82. Persia wrote:

    The point was that our idea that a 30 year old and 13 year old(I didn’t realize she was 13.) should not have sexual relations maybe culturally determined and does not necessarily come from some naturally or objectively determined law.

    So what? So there’s no ‘natural law’ determining that pissing on a 13-year-old is wrong. There’s no ‘natural law’ dictating that you shouldn’t run a stoplight, but nonetheless, you’re going to get pulled over if a cop sees you do it. For that matter, running a stoplight is wrong, because people could get hurt by your actions. Our society has determined, for its good, that fucking a 13-year-old is wrong. When you fuck a 13-year-old and you are a 30-year-old man, you are committing statutory rape. I fail to see what’s so confusing about all this.

    Different states also have different ages of consent, but none IIRC are as young as 13. 13-year-olds in this country cannot drink, cannot drive, cannot vote, and are pretty much considered children in every other aspect under the law. (Their lockers can be searched at school without a warrant, for example.) Therefore, they are minors. Is it really that hard to stop yourself from fucking a 13-year-old girl?

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 9:02 am ¶

83. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ aquarianbrass–”I didn’t realize she was 13.”

    That *pivotal* fact that you missed–instead of making arguments about 15-year-olds in one culture (past or present or in a “third world” country) as a reason for 30-something men to get with tweens and teenagers in this contemporary American society–is the reason why many commenters on this thread are so bloody mad. It is the social and legal understanding that 30-something men have no business getting with tweens and teenagers (regardless of gender) in this particular society that brought R. Kelly to trial in the first place. If we were brought up in a culture/society where 13- and 15-year-olds and people twice their age have sexual relations is seen in a socially sanctioned, then what R. Kelly did wouldn’t be a problem, right?

    The reality is, aquarianbrass, what R. Kelly did took place in this current American society where having sex with anyone under the legal age of 18 is legally wrong and socially frowned upon because such a relationships are seen as so deeply inequitable. Period. As Latoya astutely pointed out to YamYam, “Generally speaking, these kinds of relationships are not loving, they are abusive. I am sure if the majority of these relationships were like the ones your parents enjoy, we would not have these laws in place. But we do, in large part because youth is attractive and youth is easily manipulated. As many people do not approach *adult* relationships with respect, it stands to reason that the most vulnerable members of our society should be shielded from jumping into something they can’t handle.”

    And, in this culture, that extended period of development is the time we *should* (and that is the operative word, yes? Though this whole hot mess with Kelly and the young woman’s parents proved otherwise) teach our young people in this particular culture to channel those raging hormones with concepts of consent and boundaries and safer sex so they have some sort of critical faculties to negotiate their sexualities on their own terms. As Octogalore beautifully said: “There’s a difference between hormones and readiness, and the age-of-consent concept is an effective although necessarily imperfect way of dealing with that. The responsibility is on the older partner to respect that and comply.”

    And, in this culture, we over-18 types shouldn’t be trying to circumvent that process ’cause we’re horny and somehow think sexing up an under-18 person will restore our own youth or give us some sense of uncritical, unconditional love (or whatever reason folks want to constantly sexually pursue people in the under-18 crowd). As Joseph succinctly stated: “As far as I’m concerned teenagers can fuck each other as much as they want (as long as they play safe) but adults don’t get to fuck them. Or, you know, piss all over them.”

    I’m sorry, aquarianbrass, but your argument still has a certain eau de excuse about it. If you would have said something like, “Now, let’s keep in mind that in certain cultures, older men getting with younger women is seen as the norm. But, apparently, not American culture. And certainly not for me, whether I’m American or not. (I say that because I don’t know where you live, aquarianbrass.) I just can’t get with what R. Kelly did. Just. can’t. Condone. It.”–and left it–but you didn’t. The way you presented your 1st and 2nd argument (though you somewhat tempered it) still comes off as a justification (some may call it victim-blaming) for the sexually developing 13-year-old young woman as being just as responsible for what happened as grown-ass 30-something (and counting) R. Kelly–who, btw, is the father of two daughters.

    ::drops chair and goes to Joseph::

    @ Joseph–completely co-sign with #79. As Toni Morrison says, you are a friend of my mind.

    ::puts head on his shoulder::

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 9:40 am ¶

84. kiki wrote:

    But,what exactly what does a 15 year old intrinsicly lack that an 18 year old possesses that the former are incapable of consenting to another?

    According to numerous, well documented neuroimaging studies a child 15 has a much less matured cognitive control network including a less developed anterior cingulate cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, and posterior parietal cortex…which all play a part in making rational decisions. It has been shown repeatedly that their brains are LESS DEVELOPED. They are not as able to make rational decisions, understand consequences, control impulses, plan ahead or control emotion the way that an adult can. This is the same damn reason why kids should not be held culpable for crimes in the same way adults are. They are not yet adults.

    Several recent studies have concluded that despite their external physical development adolescents are not fully developed intellectually or emotionally and so are more easily manipulated, less able to resist peer pressure and have very little impulse control combined with a meager understanding of consequences. Course, anyone who knows a teen could tell you that…right? And the fact that young girls are treated as chattel the world over doesn’t excuse this behavior or in any way make it normative.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 9:59 am ¶

85. kiki wrote:

    Sorry if that’s a bit repetitive…bad edit.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 10:16 am ¶

86. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ kiki–”Several recent studies have concluded that despite their external physical development adolescents are not fully developed intellectually or emotionally and so are more easily manipulated, less able to resist peer pressure and have very little impulse control combined with a meager understanding of consequences. Course, anyone who knows a teen could tell you that…right? And the fact that young girls are treated as chattel the world over doesn’t excuse this behavior or in any way make it normative.”

    Amen, friend, amen!

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 10:29 am ¶

87. Maati wrote:

    Firstly, I’d like to thank all, save for the yam person, that have posted comments on the R.Kelly verdict. I truly thought I was the only Black female in this country that believed this man needs to serve time for the crime of statutory rape. This topic had my office(majority of Black females) buzzing with comments of ‘he was framed…the girl said it wasn’t him…the girl lied in court…she needs to be charged…, etc’ and I’m certain you have heard others that would make you question the sanity & morals of the Black community as a whole. And truth be told, I have serious doubts. Any comments I’ve made in the past few days, such as: underage sex is a illegal; parents need to be charged with something for not being responsible for their underage daugther, have labeled me a ‘hater’. And with a situation like this, I accept that label.
    I’m shocked & sickened that R.Kelly wasn’t charged & most of the Black community came to his defense.

    Again, thank you all for speaking your mind & letting me know that I’m not crazy.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 10:51 am ¶

88. Joseph wrote:

    “I’m sorry, aquarianbrass, but your argument still has a certain eau de excuse about it… The way you presented your 1st and 2nd argument (though you somewhat tempered it) still comes off as a justification…”

    See? that is exactly what I meant by the extraordinary clarity of survivors

    @Aquarianbrass
    I am not busting your chops. I understand where you are coming from and you are right that cultural specificity is very important. I write a lot about the Middle East and often chafe at the casual univeralsizing that westerners do (which not coincidentally always reinforces the illusion of innate western superiority). Like you, it makes me mad to hear that sort of thing.

    But.

    This case is set so firmly in the west that framing it in terms of cultural differences comes uncomfortably close to justifying…or even diminishing…what is legally understood as abuse in this culture. Can you see that? Unlike you, I didn’t “hear” an appeal to natural/unnatural “law” in the above posts–but rather revulsion at the display of power this case embodies. I am not on the jury either so I can’t say whether or not a legal case for abuse could be made but my concern is with the fall out it has generated, which reinforces the stereotype that children can, under the right circumstances, consent to sex with adults.

    They can’t.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶

89. Kaonashi wrote:

    I don’t think the entire Black community thinks he is innocent by a long shot. I think that the “he got framed” group is more vocal about it. And the “that lil gal knew what she was doing” group is REALLY vocal about it.

    Let’s be honest here. We ALL knew girls in HS who lied about their ages to date older guys. But when the older man trolls his former HS looking for freshmen girls to play his “hey, you sound good, I can make you a star/ a back up dancer/ one of my crew” mind games on 13-15 year olds, the odds are great that he knows how old these girls are.

    I’ve seen way too many pregnant 13-16 year old girls of all ethnicities who got that way from men 25+ who have parents that just brush it off as the teen’s fault. Society at large needs to stop throwing their kids under the bus, PERIOD.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 12:41 pm ¶

90. Amuoilmgan wrote:

    I’ve HAD it with some Black folks defending prison-worthy dysfunction because the person doing it is Black and male.
    I’ve HAD it with the idea that it is the racial duty of Black women and girls to take the blame for our sexual violations at the hands of some Black men.
    I’ve HAD it with Black women and girls not being able to have a healthy erotic/sexual life because our sexualities must be constantly misconstrued and exploited.
    I’ve HAD it with some adults (regardless of race or ethnicity, not being the adults when it comes to dealing with the under-18 set.
    I’ve HAD it with this society’s vampiristic need to feed off youth, be it sartorially or sexually.

    “Word. I’ve had it with OUR PEOPLE in general. We’re really a mess, and this proves.”

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 2:26 pm ¶

91. sonia wrote:

    just in case Racelicious hasn’t gotten tipped of this yet…..

    here’s a petition
    http://www.petitiononline.com/rkelly/petition.html

    do sign.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶

92. kerrita k. wrote:

    gonna be incendiary and throw this link in… then post my ’bout 3 cents… :0)

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/110/4/752
    it is an article from a pediatric journal exploring the age of menarche of white, black and hispanic girls in the us. with black girls reaching menarche first among all groups. (along with other signs of sexual maturation like: visible/profuse pubic hair, breast and hip development, etc.)
    i add this to illustrate the connections between culture (food habits and sexual expectations), race (as linked to food habits and perceptions of sex/sexual availability) and blacks’ encounters with the legal system.

    culture - in the aftermath of this and similar work there was supposition that menarche - as a sign of puberty - arrives earlier for black girls due to food and lifestyle choice. or heredity. or even a cultural preference for girls who are more (sexually) ‘developed’ than merely (skinny?) white girls of the same age. i think the community’s support of r. kelly dovetails with both the appearance of sexual maturity and an expectation of the presumed availability of black female sexuality. and begs the question is if we “do this to ourselves” through a variety of lifestyle choices- can we as a community undo it?

    race - in this study there was clear delineation between the racial categories. and i think that totally links to our prior conversations about the ways young black and hispanic girls are sexualized versus same age white girls. which many other commentators have done an excellent job of posting about. it comes down to what we expect of our young black girls, our older black men, and our black talking heads/leaders.

    legal system - i hate it. that r kelly’s “vindication” is a sign to many of a just social system. what i do like about this idea (cracked tho it may be) is that it is a clear illustration that many american blacks have such low expectations for parity in the american arena that they will valorize a creep in pursuit of some/any justice. the lesson for the nation is that we need to do a better job in the black community and our record of incarceration. fast.

    anyway. read the article (and there are many similar studies out there) …
    :0)
    -kerrita k.

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 5:30 pm ¶

93. bdsista wrote:

    Do any of you work with kids on a regular basis? I am in my 18th year in public education, the majority of it in middle school and there is nothing sadder than seeing the innocent happy 11yr old turn into little miss hot thang at 13. Why, usually an older man and what goes? Grades, motivation to learn, maladaptive behavior, and any focus at all on getting an education. I have seen students who have had to be escorted class to class because of premature sexual behavior at 12/13. Also as a family law attorney, statutory rape is a crime! Regardless of the nice intellectual masturbatory discussions posted here, the law says sex with underage persons male or female is against the law. Culture, mores, or relationships don’t matter. If you love her, you will wait till she’s 18 or her parents will legally grant consent at 16 (in some states). But if anyone has been in a school for any length of time, you will see that most young people even if they are sexually active are experiementing (which is also dangerous without protection). Most older men are NOT in LOVE with these girls! R Kelly did not love this child! Most girls do not know what love really is, they know a fantasy. It is very sad to blame the victim in this case. My question is if men are supposed to be running the world, why can’t they control their damn dicks! Yam deeply disturbed me with his suggestions that rape is instinctive. Rape is an act of power, anger and hate of women. R Kelly needs some serious therapy and I will never buy his music!

    Posted 18 Jun 2008 at 6:04 pm ¶

94. aquarianbrass wrote:

    To Persia, Cruel Secretary and Josesph,
    Yes, my point was that each society has its own standards as far as who can have sexual relations with whom and when and where and how. I don’t see how bringing that up somehow justifies his actions. I made it clear that within our framework of values what he did was wrong and a crime. I mean, if I was somehow making an argument that other cultures values are valid than I would have to reciprocate and acknowledge that ours are just as valid. I, like most people had a visceral reaction to the news of his transgressions.
    But when Joseph says an adolescent can never give consent, is he talking absolutely or within certain context. To me this question expands beyond just “sex” but to other arenas such as the justice system, political participation, rights to property, etc.
    And you all point out how manipulatible adolescents are but what about when they interact with each other?Aren’t they vulnerable to each other? Is it anymore acceptable for a teenage male to be trying to “get them panties” from another teenager than it is for say a guy in college?If they are so immature, they probably shouldn’t be having sex with each other.( I suspect most parents concur)
    I did want to open up a discussion on how we construct these frameworks espe