Why has a very middle class girl of 25 fallen for 71-year old Jimmy Page?
Perhaps because they like each others company?
"Certainly, Page has a well-developed dark side, and became so infatuated with the works of Satanist Aleister Crowley that he bought Crowley's home, Boleskine House, on the shores of Loch Ness."
Do you really need to ask the question?
In his Led Zeppelin heyday, he had a girlfriend of 14
I don't think that bodes well.
Indeed, Michael hits he nail on the head.
No matter how great the musician is, it sill does not warrant sex with minors.
I don't understand the relevance of the "middle class" categorization of the young lady as Jimmy Page has also been middle class since he was a zygot.
That is the implication is only the working class do socially unacceptable things such as marry someone decades older than them. The media eh?
Just read the part about his previous "14 year old girlfriend" which if true, is of concern, while his latest relationship with a 25 year old although a big age gap, is legal.
Back in those days, it was legal in many states for teenage girls to engage in relationships with older men as long as they had their parents permission. There are countless examples of men that returned from WWII that married child brides in their teens. FWIW, the girl in question willingly lost her virginity to David Bowie before she ever had a relationship with Page, so it's hard to paint a portrait of her being a victim of pedophilia.
FWIW, the girl in question willingly lost her virginity to David Bowie before she ever had a relationship with Page, so it's hard to paint a portrait of her being a victim of pedophilia.
Whether she is a victim or not is simply irrelevant. It's a point of law...
Sorry but you can hardly use that as validation!
A minor is a minor, its illegal and unethical. Seriously, does a 13-14 year old actually know what she is doing, unless she actually was abused prior to Bowie. If the man in question was Jimmy Savile, the responses here would be entirely different.
If the man in question was Jimmy Savile, the responses here would be entirely different.
Just a reminder that this site concerns itself with the life and impact of Aleister Crowley. Discussions concerning the reported dalliances of musicians are rather stretching that point!
Interesting that the Daily Mail still can't refer to Crowley without the word 'Satanist' attached...
Owner and Editor
The most charitable take on it is that the Daily Mail might not think their readers would understand what the description ”Thelemite” meant, and “Satanist” was the nearest thing they could come up with to it - partially assisted also by A.C.’s sometimes playful admission and encouragement of (mis)perceptions along these lines in several places. In some ways A.C. unfortunately only has himself to blame for perpetuating the bad publicity as his own worst enemy, since there is no way he couldn’t have known what would be the knee-jerk reaction to the word by the bulk of the God-fearing public whom he would otherwise hope would be receptive towards the cause of Thelema, something entirely different.
The band is now recognised as the most debauched in rock’s sleazy pantheon: drummer John Bonham, known as ‘the Beast’, would perform on stage with a bag of cocaine between his legs, reaching in to snort fistfuls while he played.
Is this bit true or Mail hyperbole - I hadn’t come across the fact that John Bonham was meant to have shared his therionic moniker with A.C. before?
Regarding this Scarlett woman also featured, I hope I wouldn’t be lowering the tone of the conversation too much here were I to say – WOOF WOOF!
Norma N Joy Conquest
One day you are an innocent under age angel, the next you are fair game for dirty old men. One day you are a dirty old man, next day ridiculed by jealous news hacks for the ability to seem more attractive to young girls than the average hollow teenage boy. Today's moral codes are tomorrows ridiculed narrow minded restrictions, or irresponsible primitive indulgences. Its funny though how whatever stories arise these days about Crowley, and no matter how hard they try to make him seem like the most evil man in history, they can never find anything to say that even mildly shocks the well informed mind of today. Most rock stars have out done Crowley's little debauches many times over and in far grander style, so that they are left only with the totally yawn inducing label of satanist, another label that Rock musicians have rendered harmlessly amusing. For all the Hype, Crowley never did anything really bad or just plain nasty, apart from offend narrow minded Victorian values, and upsetting reptile lovers.
Right. And today's moral codes are revisions of yesterday's status quo. In the olde days, women were routinely married at age 13. Of course, today's moral (and legal) codes are designed to protect adolescent girls from premature breeding (before they're old enough to realize what they're getting into). Then there's always the fact that (for example) the average lifespan in Ancient Aegypt was around 25 years of age - so early procreation was virtually mandatory, if a child was to mature adequately before his/her parents took their Seat in the East.
Note: The Aegyptians could live to seventy or eighty+, but the "average" lifespan was young by today's standard due to animal attacks, accidents and illnesses without antibiotics or other forms of modern medicine. In any case, nature provides the "natural" parameters, and culture provides the "legal" restrictions.
These things tend to come in circles. In the UK, the relatively free-minded Middle Ages were followed by the reaction of the Puritanism of Cromwell, itself followed by the ‘Enlightenment’ of the Merry Monarch onwards, to be succeeded by Victorian prudery (at which time it was nevertheless not uncommon to see girls of 13 or 14 wedded) followed by Edward VII’s relative bohemianism, then the austerity of the immediate post-war period, ‘60s permissiveness, the ‘80s reaction to that, and then the ‘90s reaction to that, post 9/11 effects, and so on. Who’s to say what the future may bring?
I’m not sure about that – while they might not mind excesses in sex and drugs and artistic creations (e.g. pornographic art and literature), the idea of causing pain to an animal even such as a frog, or sacrificing a cat in particular, is these days in times of heightened sensitivities towards animal rights and animal suffering, even more likely to shock, outrage and sicken such sensibilities. Also, the idea of cursing somebody to cause the ultimate misfortune in their death.
True. Whereas Ozzy Osbourne might at one time have caused a ripple, post Marilyn Manson (who has virtually made a career out of it) it has become somewhat blasé.
(before they're old enough to realize what they're getting into).
You see this is a very human animal kind of statement.
Of course what else could it be. We are only focused on our own amazing existence. And yes of course, how sick it would be of us not to be so obsessed with the welfare of our young.
But even so, and I am as ever ready to be proved ignorant here by my anthropologist friend who seems to be able to find contradictions to any base statement I might attempt to make about other species, other species mate with each other unencumbered by the mental stress of having to consider the reediness or not of the mental state of their chosen mate. The fact that their chosen mate can bare healthy offspring seems to be the only factor considered, and not if maybe they have considered how it might effect their career opportunities, the effect on their family, etc, etc.
Although I must say that one of the most memorable little moments of my life was sitting outside the British museum one very cold and inhospitable afternoon watching an acid rain mutilated male pigeon incessantly attempt to mount an even worse inflicted female bird who was hopping along on a one two toed leg, the other leg having been burned to a stump. Obviously the male was not to concerned about the looks or possible health aspects of the barer of his future offspring.
Of course we raise ourselves above these "animals" we are humans. But this is only our game. A game we play with ourselves. A game, like most human activity, which is devoid of meaning to any other species. The rest of the universe looks on in silent uncaring ignorance at our meaningless incestuous meanderings. And yes, right now there are many many people in the west who weep more for the loss of "animals" than the loss of humans. We are blessed with intelligent stupidity.
To misquote Mrs Merton:
Why has a very middle class girl of 25 fallen for 71-year old multi-millionaire Jimmy Page?
Why has a very middle class girl of 25 fallen for 71-year old multi-millionaire Jimmy Page?
I don't know the media headline is quick to point out that she's from a wealthy family already hence the query.
There's no point in being silly about it - some people mature sexually (and intellectually) earlier than others.
The point is simply that there has to be a legal line drawn, and it has to be drawn somewhere towards the upper end of average, and it has to be respected, because those who don't mature early can quite easily be taken advantage of by lust-blinded (or even actively vicious) fools, and it's going to be a horrific, unwanted experience for such youngsters.