Brand New Band • Page 790

That's what you are saying that I'm doing, without an ounce of understanding for nuance and context of what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is basically the same that Jason said here:

I firmly believe that there were cases of abuse of women by band members throughout history. But lumping what Lacey did with what other bands from the past or present did without context of what they did is simply wrong and a disservice to Lacey's victims. I do think that what Lacey did should be considered even worst than the most famous cases, and the reason why is this: I don't even think you can call Lacey's victims groupies.

Why? In Lacey's victims as far as we can tell from their stories, they didn't actively seek him or the band for sexual or romantic reasons. Two of them were freaking underage photographers. The assumption that all of them idolized Lacey prior to being preyed upon Lacey is false at least in one of the victims accounts, the first denouncer. She flat out says she wasn't much of a Brand New fan back then. Basically what I'm saying is that unlike previous classic bands, it's heavily implied that groupies in the past seeked band members in a romantic or sexual way, while in Lacey's case, what we are seeing is freaking kids that were there because they were fans and couldn't possibly think that Lacey would lead them on that way. Both are abuse, both are wrong, but I agree with Jason that we shouldn't discuss those instances broadly like you are doing.

So what I'm saying is that like Jason said, you need to take in consideration that consenting laws are different across the board, and while there's definitely cases of abuse throughtout history, I don't see Lacey's victims in the same sense that I see the victims of other classic artists because each case deserves to be seen by its own context. When you paint things in broad strokes, you are doing this wrong, in my modest opinion.

 

So... if someone is a groupie by your definition, they are more worthy of being abused while legally underage?

Assuming you're following your own advice about seeing each case in its own context, have you stopped listening to David Bowie yet? Vehemently decried his behaviour? Set his discography ablaze?

 

nicole's (the first person to make accusations) account said:

 

Be careful, it seems like you're teetering awful close to "they were asking for it" when it comes to "groupies".

 

if a 14 year old propositions a 25 year old band member for sex, it is up to the 25 year old to not do it. it is as clear and simple as that. the girl did nothing wrong.

 

ViniVidiWhatever:

No, ignored user. What I'm saying is both are wrong, but lumping everyone together is a disservice to their story and a way for Brand New and Lacey ato get away with this bullshit.

I don't like naming the victims because I know how hardcores behave, but yeah, I've read stuff from her own posts that made me think that she wasn't that big of a Brand New fan. Not back then, not in 2002. Not even sure if it was on Diaz posts or somewhere else, but the way she said it sort of implied that at first, no, she wasn't that big of a fan. My point still stands though, we are talking about underage kids that clearly weren't capable of consent because they were both under the age of consenting laws that Lacey groomed and who knows what else.

 

Not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is: let's say a groupie of 17 years old in London back then slept with an 18 year old Paul from the Beatles. Is it the same of what we are seeing with Lacey? Of course no, because consenting laws back then were different AND 17 year old sleeping with an 18 year old isn't the same as a grown ass 24 year old grooming a 14-15 year old kid.

 

I have no idea what's happening right now Haven't visited this thread or the SF one in a few days.

 

see, now you're making up examples. what about a groupie of 17 years old sleeping with a 32 year old band dude? because that's more of what it was

 

I'm not getting deep into this, or saying that you are using the "they were asking for it defense". I just want you to be careful because what you're saying, or at least the way you're saying it, is getting real close to that line.

 

I honestly think that @Jason Tate needs to interwine here because this is completely useless. Like he said, comparing back then and lumping everything together is wrong.

Also, a 17 year old fan sleeping with a 32 year old band dude is gross, but not as gross as a twenty something with a 14-15 year old kid. That's clearly below age of consent in both US/UK.

 

Germany is 14. does that mean it is okay if it happened in Germany?

age of consent is silly to use in situations like this, which is why i've said to go away from actually using that as a hard line and looking at it from a broader angle

 

Bowie slept with and dated a 14 year old

 

Jason: Using age of consent to judge these issues is the wrong way to look at it.

Them: Yeah, listen to what Jason said. Use age of consent to judge these issues!

Looks about right.

 

As did Anthony Kiedis, then published details about it in his book.

 

i know there's a language barrier to a degree but i've tried to explain that, heh.

 

Age of consent here in Brazil is 14. Does that mean it is okay it happened in Germany or Brazil? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it's legal. I'm giving the perspective of someone that literally have worked in a civil case like this here this year. I have this client that contacted me because his ex-husband was late with their kid child support. Their kid, a 15 year old from a rural place here in my city ended up getting married after she was 16 years old with a 20 something dude. Is it gross? Yes. Is it gut wretching to have to represent a kid like this in court because since she is married she's legally an adult? YES. The kid doesn't know even how to open her own bank account to receive the agreement we settled with her asshole father. But it's legal. What Lacey did isn't just gross, it's illegal and there's a reason for that: states in the US as a whole decided that at least under 16 kids aren't capable of consent. We can't miss perspective on that, in my opinion. Because that's a getaway card for Lacey or any other child predator: it would be legal in Brazil!!! It would be legal in Germany!!! A kid over the age of consent was a groupie and slept with a band member in the 70s/60s!!!! All of these examples are examples of whataboustisms, and that's simply not how we should be handling this.

 

i'm still confused what you are trying to say? because nobody is giving jesse any leeway, we are all saying that others should have had the same wrath brought upon them as we have upon jesse. nobody is giving jesse any slack at all.

i don't care about the legality of it, if this same thing happened in brazil i would hope we would react the exact sam eway

 

sigh

 

I really wish straylight would just give it up already, seems like every time I check this thread there’s some misunderstanding going on with them in the thick of it.

 

I'm saying that even if unconsciously, you are giving him a leeway. And it bothers me because I know you have the heart in the right place. That's why Tate advised against lumping cases together, and at same time said that you can't work with just legal parameters. I agree with what you are saying, but if you look closely to posts of yesterday on this thread, you will find people that are giving leeway to Lacey liking and agreeing with you. Which is unfortunate and I think exactly what I was trying to prevent and Tate put it more eloquently.

I think that taking it to pms is more wise, but I honestly hope what I've said above will be enough to cwhit and others understand my line of thought.

 

i'd say that my reasoning makes me harsher than giving any leeway, as i'm willing to condemn more than giving any benefit of the doubt.

 

Blurring the lines make the guilty "run free", since well, "other did it too, am i rite?" kind of thinking. Also, we can't live by our own personal standards. That's not how we live in society. I just showed you an example of something awful that I had to go through it because of the particularities of a specific case. You feel better for yourself for having harsher standards, standards that hear me buddy, I agree with. But that's not how we live in a civilized society. This kind of rhetoric only helps the guilty, not the victims.

Wish I could find an article that explains exactly what I'm saying, but I'm short on time and the father of a friend of mine that always like a father to me is dying in an hospital and I literally having my mom screaming at me to get over the hospital right now. So that's what I'll do.

 

ive never seen someone so willfully miss the point of what others are saying over and over and over