David Bowie broke a lot of laws.
He did drugs while having sex with men and dressing in a gender non-conforming fashion. And he had sex with a minor.
Now, I’m supposed to pretend that the law is not a basis for morality – what is immoral about drug use, homosexuality, and clothing? – while totally not grieving the death of a man that changed the Western world I grew up in – to make it more receptive to my kind, mind you – because he broke a law to have sex with a minor.
And yes, I do see that distinction as legal, not moral. The minor has been an adult for decades, and sees no wrong-doing in her behavior or his. She does not see herself, a grown woman looking in, as groomed or manipulated. Bowie, it would seem, did not commit this act again. Or at least, no one has come forward.
I hit an ex-boyfriend in the face once in a fit of rage. It was completely uncool, he did not deserve it, it was not self-defense. It did not happen again. We are still incredibly close years later. Shall my accomplishments be dismissed as done by a domestic abuser?
I’m expected as a feminist to call Bowie a pedophile and sex offender because he slept with someone that the law called a child. I’m expected to call this encounter an act of violence no matter what the minor says, because she had to have been a child that could not consent.
No. I’m not doing that. And don’t be wrong, I am uncomfortable either way. I can’t call someone a sex offender whose “victim” never felt that violence was done upon her, but I also can’t say I condone most 14 year olds I’ve known having sex with famous older men, or older men period.
But what I do know is that 18 is an arbitrary setting for making adult choices. If we went by brain development, we would be prosecuting anyone sleeping with people under 25 for statutory. My ex-boyfriend would be being called a pedophile because he porked 24 year old me at 28 years old. And yet that rings absurd to all of us. And if we went by physical maturity, this would be no conversation. And yet I’m sure that rings wrong to us, too.
And what I do know is that statutory rape laws exist so parents can protect their property – their children. Not to prevent pedophilic behavior. And seeing feminists march on for days about how statutory rape, a completely patriarchal construct, is a horrible act of violence, gives me a migraine-inducing eyeroll.
And what I do know is that I’ve met people in their thirties, mentally and emotionally impaired people that lacked the development to understand why people found them attractive, what was weird about someone wanting them, a child in an adult body. And that bothers just about nobody, ESPECIALLY the law.
I have zero interest in the law defining morality, or changing the law to reflect morality. I’m interested in dismantling the simple yes or no answers that patriarchy seeks us to be sedated in.
I seek a society that can understand that some teenagers have had adult lives, and some adults will never reach a non-vulnerable mental state.
And that
JESUS CHRIST YOU CAN’T JUST USE PATRIARCHAL LAWS WHEN IT’S CONVENIENT FOR YOU TO SUBVERSIVELY HATE ON A DEAD PERSON.
—melony ppenosyne
Flommist Melony Ppenosyne is a writer and weird artist type. In the last year alone, she’s traveled to Virginia as a competing poet, co-written a play on mental illness that is presently being produced, and crafted a published essay checking the privilege and scope of art galleries. Copyright © 2016 Melony Ppenosyne. Image: Still from Danish band Kashmir’s music video for The Cynic, feat David Bowie.
PLEASE SUPPORT FLOMM
TIPS + DONATIONS DISCREETLY ACCEPTED