Chill dude, we think Jerry Lee Lewis is weird too.

CinisterCee said:

yeah but he should be brought up more often in this discussion. I just don't understand why he's not.

what about elvis? thats the biggest one

and the thing is michael wasnt even proven to be a peadophile, not one drop of evidence through a 3 (?) month trial and 2 years of searching yet he is branded a peadophile but there are people like jerry lee lewis and elvis who are right out in the open with it and not a single word like that is spoken of them or no one blinks an eyelid

Hmmmm.... you know - it isn't about age really, it's about gender and forcing them into sexual relationships that are outside their "supposed" sexual orientation. Of course one might ask, how can you be sure a 13-year-old is going to turn straight or gay? But the public at least assumes - hell takes for granted and prays to god - the victim is totally straight. People are so overtly bothered by Michael's case(s) because the allegations came from boys, not from girls. Girls would have caused controversy too, and a great deal of it, but c'mon you know how it is.

Novabreaker said:

Aye.

Novabreaker said:

Very good point. The homosexual aspect is extremely important. I just didn't jive with the advertisement saying that he give it all up for the woman he loved. A 13 year old is no woman.

DorothyParkerWasCool said:

Well, he didn't literally have to "force" the girl to do anything. It's not a rape per-se. I think one reason why this kind of behaviour goes uncriticized often is because so many grown men do this kind of thing in their "normal lives". Hit on seriously teenaged girls on the streets, parks, bus stops, whatever. And some underaged girls are always willing to go for it, have sex with older men. And also naturally also these girl once they grow up will have their own experiences of it. And perhaps we shouldn't always deem it totally "dirty". Perhaps it is, I don't know.

I am a little bothered by what I am going to say next, but it seems from a day-to-day observation that it's just common behaviour for the human species - all across the globe and all throughout the history for that matter - that the male is indeed older than the female. And a 13-14 old girl can already be fertile, so as far as that explanation goes...

Forget it.

Novabreaker said:

Pretty good point. Along with the gender MJ is seen as a predator to some whereas with the others--Lewis, Elvis and even Woody Allen--it's viewed as love. They all married the girls they were into. MJ hasn't seemed to form an adult sexual relationship with any of his young friends--gay or straight.

I understand all of your points, but regardless of that it's still wrong. I just don't understand why we make excuses for some people and demonize others. I can't excuse a man for marrying a 13 year old no matter how much she loved him. Especially when she was his cousin.
[Edited 9/28/05 9:03am]

we think Woody Allen is weird too! and R. Kelly!

CinisterCee said:

Again you are missing the point. I'm not asking if we think they are weird. I was peeved by the tagline they used to preview the film Great Balls of Fire. Saying that a man gave it all up for the woman he loved to synopsize a film about a grown man who married his 13 year old cousin is glossing over some things. BTW, I'm not an apologist for MJ, R. Kelly or anyone, instead I think our society needs to ask itself some questions about how we look the other way when its heterosexual and then get all upset when its men with boys. Wrong is wrong, can't excuse one and villify the other.
[Edited 9/28/05 9:10am]

DorothyParkerWasCool said:

yeah I see. what I'm saying is, I don't think people actually excuse the behavior of Jerry Lee Lewis, R. Kelly, or Woody Allen. if you really start talking about those guys' relationships, people get creeped out.

Not Guilty!!!

CinisterCee said:

Ok, let me try this another way. Do you think a film about MJ's life 20 years from now will tidy up the issues that have haunted him since 1993?

DorothyParkerWasCool said:

depends on who makes it, we need singleton, spike or me.

DorothyParkerWasCool said:

What do you mean by 'tidy up'?

lilgish said:

I nominate you

JackieBlue said:

I should have been more explicit, what I meant by "tidy up" is softening the blow so to speak. Not so much the film, but the way it was advertised and or described. I covered that in my initial post.

DorothyParkerWasCool said:

Cool, I've already casted my Joe.

http://img150.imageshack....pic7tq.jpg

Mmm, okay. It would be ashame if the filmmaker let that overshadow his life story. I could see them making the first half o his life about the music and the second half about controversy.

He fought for the love of his children...

lilgish said:

Novabreaker said:

I think its unaccetable either way.. hetero or otherwise. But unfortunatly im not surprised by your response. We are taught women are suppose to look like pr-pubecent girls anyways, so hey why not do one that actually is 13....

The main reason the film marketing seems so far out of whack is that, once again, folks are using 2005 urban societal standards to examine a 40+ year old regional culture. Honestly it's exasperating, I thought so many folks on this board were current or former college students. In my recollection, history and sociology classes are available in high school, as are basic international culture studies. Applying terms like "incestuous pedophile" in the Jerry Lee matter betrays a real inability to imagine the world, any world, outside of one's immediate frame of reference. The situation had its own context, time and place, and what is "revisionist" is to pretend otherwise.

Just a few items to provide context: Jerry Lee's sister had been married at age 14. And (now famously) Loretta Lynn at age 12. Jerry Lee, still young himself, had already been married twice by the time he married Myra, his second cousin (twice removed) - and one of the previous marriages to his preacher's daughter! Their church, widely popular in parts of the south, believed the biggest sin to be 'carousing', and once you were overtaken by 'sexual desire' (puberty - lust!!) it was appropriate to do right by God and get married. Myra herself explained customs 'back home' to the British press, "You can marry at 10 if you can find a husband."

Listening to the equivalent of Hilary Duff? Hilarious. A 10+ year old girl in many such families was expected to be a competent family cook and seamstress, perform basic nursing, milk cows, churn butter, lug water, kill and prepare chickens, care for younger children and sick elderly.... Even in my rather non-religious family in the north my grandmother was getting midwife training by then and my mother was bailing hay, pumping water, milking cows, collecting eggs, driving around the farm to finish her morning chores before going to school. In contrast, my nieces DO listen to Hilary Duff and aren't expected to know how to make a bed or even fetch their own carton of juice. Not everything is progress.

Eileen

forget all of 'em. i'm going with Fatty Arbuckle.

Eileen said:

Very eloquent Eileen, but the first thing that I must inform you is that you do not attack the individual when you disagree with their point. All learned persons, or at least those of us that paid attention are aware of that.

Now to your arguments, the sociological and historical classes you reference also teach one to understand the issues they encounter and to place them in proper context. Or as I like to call it, critical thinking. I’m not using a 2005 lens to judge that society. Instead I’m using a 2005 lens to analyze the synopsis of a 1980s film advertisement that was shown during 2005, last night to be exact. I just found it interesting to place that type of wording in reference to a film that covered those issues. The film does not gloss over the ramifications of Jerry Lee Lewis' actions, but the network re-airing the film seemed to think it more proper to promote the film in that way. The irony is that for all of your discussions of how college teaches one to look at issues in context, you did not get the point of my post. I was not and am not discussing the norms of that time, but from all accounts concerning the reaction of the larger society to Lewis' behavior, his actions were not the norm. Side note, if you took any sociology classes you would know that your argument commits the cardinal sin of discussing what you have personally seen and using it as a representation of the norms of a society. You never use that in a discussion because it discredits everything that follows. Your situation may not and generally does not reflect the larger society, that's why your response is so inaccurate. In short, representative samples, scholarly research etc. on the issue would have been more appropriate and carried more weight to prove your point. Examples about your family and of the lifestyle of Lewis’ family and Loretta Lynn can be discredited as limited to a small segment of society. Main point, even if it was normative that does make it right.

Next, the film was made in the 1980's and it discusses a period that was not that long ago. It's not a terribly different world as so many claim. Especially when there are individuals that lived in that time period who are currently of functioning age. The different time period argument is used to justify the unjustifiable. There are numerous films and discussions that go back and look at the past and question the actions of the subjects being covered. If we used your logic, there should not be any films that critically discuss the actions of German citizens during WWII, because anti-Semitism was normative in that society (in fact it was sanctioned by the government). Furthermore, if I apply your logic to pre-Civil Rights/Jim Crow America, the South should be excused. But as those two examples prove what is normative is not always right.

Last point, I find your excusing Lewis' behavior based on locale and time period laughable. And to point out the absurdity of your argument I will use your technique of first through third person obeservations/accounts to make my point. My parents are southerners and they grew up during Lewis' time period and no one in their community condoned that type of behavior.

The most alarming aspect of this entire discussion is the rate at which some choose to defend Lewis' behavior, although the majority of citizens at the time did not condone it.

Btw, Eileen I already know the pointless arguments you are going to use to dissect my post in order to protect, no deflect attention from the inadequacy of your argument.

I will give you a few: Why does everything have to be about race? What does the holocaust have to do with it? Why does everything go back to slavery? And my favorite, Genocide has nothing to do with marrying young?…Need any more?
[Edited 9/28/05 22:01pm]

Novabreaker said:

Amen. If they'd been 12 year old girls, Michael'd be getting the hero treatment a la R. Kelly.

Eileen said:

Excellent points. What people forget that marrying young (Jerry himself was only in his 20's) was the norm then and still is in most parts of the world. Also, a second cousin twice-removed is not, in any state or province in North America, legally considered incest. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but in 1950's Louisiana, I believe the legal age for consent (and marriage) was 12.

So was Jerry Lee's marriage to Myra illegal in any wya? Nope. Was it morally wrong? As that's a matter of personal opinion, I don't think there is a definitive yes or no answer. It's certainly not my cup of tea. I can't imagine being married at 13 (I can't imagine being married now ) and he most likely did take advantage of her.
[Edited 9/28/05 22:48pm]