Why? Why must we hear such a revolting story? The Wikipedia version glosses over the seediest parts, but he still comes out pretty repellant.
If I close my eyes forever
Will it all remain unchanged?
If I close my eyes forever
Will it all remain the same?
It’s a shame that the sexual revolution of the 1960s led to the sleazy objectification of the 1970s. Reading the description of Kim Fowley reminded me very uncomfortably of my own father’s attitudes. To the best of my knowledge he’s never actually raped anyone, he’s not a drug user, and he would never be so overt about his sleaziness, but he shows this 70s mindset in small ways, and transparently admits to it when pressed without even realizing how disgusting and horrible it is. He is a man with no shame and no concept of women as fellow human beings rather than objects of desire.
I wish society could have moved from the repressed, morally shrill prudishness of the 50s to the present (or, more likely, future) acceptance of safe, responsible, consensual sex, and skipped the whole “Leisure Suit Larry” phase.
It’s important for traumatized people to feel safe share their stories — for healing. It’s also important for changing the culture and raising awareness that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience unwanted sexual experiences during their lives and only 60% at best — in colleges it’s closer to 14%, and in other populations, closer to zero — report. The symptoms of rape trauma can include anxiety, depression, chemical dependency, suicidal ideation and even increased risk for physical health impairments. Absent safety and a healing relationship (as in therapy, for e.g.) the adverse health impacts alone can persist for years — as the story shows — and cause further harms, including suicide. So it’s good this story was shared here.
Good way to put it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, cliched but true.
I think it is interesting that the headline focuses on the victim. I would rather it said “Kim Fowley, band manager for Runaways, is a rapist.” And while we’re at it, “…in front of others” seems gratuitously salacious (or salaciously gratuitous).
…not that you asked.
It was her choice to go public, so it does seem right to lead with her. And “Kim Fowley a Sleazebag” is pretty old news that no one would click on, right?
I was responding to Boundgear’s first comment. As you can see from my subsequent one, another comment made me reconsider. I’ll delete the first one.
Thanks! It just didn’t seem like something you’d say.
“Christ, what an asshole” seems like a pretty mild response to this news.
o_0 I am so creeped out right now.
A twisted narcissist to the very end, it seems.
There was no 70s mindset in favor of child rape. Good grief.
For me the most surprising (and disappointing) facet of the story is the involvement, however passive, of Jett.
I actually don’t think “in front of others” i’s salacious so much as a profound illustration of the attitudes of the period and difference in the power relationship. In the same way that lynchings used to be a “the whole town is involved,” affair.
In some parts of the UK there was. PIE partly explains how the Westminster paedophile ring and Jimmy Savile et al got away with it. 
Indeed. 
Jett was as a victim herself. This dude is a professional creep, preying on very young and susceptible girls. This rape show wasnt passive compliance, it was some awful show of power.
Because rape is ugly and revolting. To smooth over the rough edges to make the reader more comfortable is doing a disservice to her and every rape victim out there. You should be disgusted at the horrible things that she actually had done to her. Your skin should crawl reading about the people who were there and that did nothing to stop it. Because anything less would be wrong.
Disappointed is not a strong enough word for what I am feeling.
