Subject: RE: Roy Harper charged
From:
GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:15 PM
Matt, re your comment "The post above seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that, even if he's guilty of it, there are circumstances in which that could be considered acceptable, or a least retrospectively considered acceptable "back in the 70s".
I am NOT suggesting anything of the kind. I also stated that it's a good thing that victims are able to speak out and abuse is brought to light. I have personally known 2 victims of abuse/incest, one of whom ended up not wanting any kind of sexual contact with men, the other one ending up committing suicide. So I do not condone abuse, or under age sex, at any time or in any era.
My main point is I think a distinction should be made between being physically attracted to an adolescent/teenage girl who, in the biological sense, has begun to mature into a woman, and being sexually attracted to children.
And there is a difference between feeling attracted to some-one and acting on it. Even back in the seventies, my parents may have been okay with what the local reporter had written, but there was no way they would have allowed me to be in any situation where an adult male could have actually had any sexual contact with me. My Dad in particular was very protective of me in that respect.
Which in turn raises a question in Roy Harper's case, regarding the alleged victim. Where were the girls' parents at the time this abuse was supposed to have taken place? What were they thinking, allowing a twelve year old to spend time alone with an adult male? This is assuming the alleged abuse took place on the farm he had at the time, and not at gigs - where I think it's highly unlikely a 12 year old would have been able to attend, unaccompanied.
As for the song, I agree the lyrics can be interpreted as a graphic description of sexual relations between an adult male and a thirteen year old. But I dont think that proves that the Roy Harper, as the writer, was literally having those thoughts about a real thirteen year old, let alone acting on them.
A case in point is Kate Bush's "Infant Kiss" - also written in the first person:
"What is this? An infant kiss
That sends my body tingling?
I've never fallen for
A little boy before.
No control.
Just a kid and just at school.
Back home they'd call me dirty.
His little hand is on my heart.
He's got me where it hurts me.
Knock, knock. Who's there in this baby?
You know how to work me.
All my barriers are going.
It's starting to show.
Let go. Let go. Let go."
Sounds pretty damning also, and that she could be 'next on the list'...until you discover, as I did recently via another forum where this is being discussed, that this song is actually written from the point of view of a fictional character in a story, where a governess is being haunted by the ghost of a man who takes posession of the child. It's based on the film 'The Innocents' which in turn is based on the novel "The Turn of the Screw"
That puts it in a completely different light. In the case of 'Forbidden Fruit' Roy Harper may well be likewise creating an imaginary scenario expressing a fantasy about a fictitious character.
Artist's have always expressed the darker aspects of human nature and the sub-conscious through songs, literature and art.
It concerns me that there could be a form of censorship creeping in with this, and we could end up reverting to a Victorian society dominated by repression and denial, where at the same time all kinds of unsavoury things take place 'in secret' - bearing in mind that this was an era when not only abuse, but child prostitution went on, underneath the veneer of respectabiliity.
|
sj
