Killers Kancelled

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

all sorts of potential abuse, humiliation, even rape

You are just projecting all of this though (in the specific context of this anecdote about the Killers - I don't disagree that the rock industry as a whole is full of deplorable behaviour). The initial question is, do you consider having casual sex with a groupie "abuse"? I'm not saying that question can't be answered in the affirmative, this just seems like an instance where perhaps puritanism is seeping in under the guise of being against "abuse."

[Flouncer]

I'm genuinely a bit baffled by this, not least because I don't recall these challenges or any specific interaction with you, honestly. It may well be that I only see it worth posting on the subject if there's ambiguity I find worth discussing rather than just echoing "down with this sort of thing", but if you're going to make the leap from that to "you ARE an abuser", then there's really nothing more for us to discuss - and I'd rather not.

Do you think I'm interested in anything a repellent individual like you has to say? Get fucked.

Flouncer, mate. Completely unfounded and uncalled for

Like I said in my post, this is a person who consistently and repeatedly casts doubt on victims of sexual assault; says that their accounts are not to be trusted, and if their account has been accepted by a court or something like that he'll imply that they were asking for it in some way. He always, always minimises the abuse and defends the victim. This is serious and consistent misogyny: this is what people mean by rape culture. Somebody who holds those attitudes has almost certainly done some absolutely repulsive shit themselves, without feeling that they've done anything wrong. He's a complete and utter scumbag. I've held my tongue plenty of times when I've seen him make these disgusting arguments but this morning I'd had enough of it. Fuck him.

I dunno. He is talking about someone who went with a prostitute 'for a laugh'.

I'm not going to trawl back through his sewer of a post history to find examples but I've seen him display these attitudes so many times... I'm not familiar with what you're referring to but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

[madhair60]

are we human? or are we #cancelled

[The Mollusk]

Don't have time to reply in full right now but pheewww thanks madhair for getting a big laugh out of me directly after some very tense posts

[Shit Good Nose]

are we human? or are we #cancelled

We are Devo.

[bgmnts]

Yeah but girls love men in bands and men in bands and the scene will continue to act this way.

And so it goes.

[Rizla]

I'm not sure whether this adds much to the conversation but, as someone who has played in bands that have opened for some big name acts (get me), the only time I ever witnessed this kind of boorish, throwback cliched bollocks, ie girls being selected by crewmembers, given backstage passes and ushered in to get fucked up with and, by heavy implication,  fucked by the band, the act in question came from a background of ridiculous privilege, practically aristocratic; indeed I remember one of our band remarking that it was more like being at a rich kid's birthday party than the scene of rock and roll debauchery. The other acts I've supported tended to be from humbler backgrounds, with sounder politics and who would baulk at the mere suggestion of such antics. They also tended to employ more women in their crew. ANyway.

[Noodle Lizard]

Like I said in my post, this is a person who consistently and repeatedly casts doubt on victims of sexual assault; says that their accounts are not to be trusted, and if their account has been accepted by a court or something like that he'll imply that they were asking for it in some way.

Either you've completely misremembered stuff I've said or you're thinking of someone else entirely. I'll acknowledge being wary of going all in on some of the #MeToo accusations before there's much convincing evidence (I've had two friends wrongfully accused of something, and I've seen how damaging it can be), but I can't think of a time I've been anything other than glad when a rapist/abuser has been proven guilty - and, as I said recently, there are plenty more people in Hollywood alone who should see the same result.

I'm not about to try and convince you "I do respect women and I'm not an abuser!", but you can understand why it's frustrating to read something about yourself that is completely at odds with what you know yourself to be, not to mention outright accusing me of abuse myself based on what you (wrongly) think my beliefs and values are.

[Flouncer]

Nah mate I'm definitely thinking of you because it makes me sick to my stomach every time you come out with this shit. You're absolutely repugnant. That's all I've got to say to you.

[Brundle-Fly]

I have to say, I do find it amusing the bands that only get nerdy middle-aged blokes wanting to come backstage after the show. Years ago, I once chatted to Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal in the bar about this. He remarked that it wasn't what he imagined his fans would be like when he dreamt of being a rockstar.

[bgmnts]

I have to say, I do find it amusing the bands that only get nerdy middle-aged blokes wanting to come backstage after the show. Years ago, I once chatted to Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal in the bar about this. He remarked that it wasn't what he imagined his fans would be like when he dreamt of being a rockstar.

Quite telling that, isn't it?

[flotemysost]

Yeah but girls love men in bands and men in bands and the scene will continue to act this way.

And so it goes.

This is buying into the mythology of groupie lore, though - of course, as we've seen, music is far from the only industry blighted by misogyny, sexual abuse and exploitation, but there's something specific about notion of the 'rock groupie' that occupies a particular cultural niche - it's a titillating cliche, a running joke, just accepted as another trimming of touring rockstar lifestyle excesses, along with chucking TVs out of hotel windows and getting coke blown up your arsehole. And this all serves to make it easier to turn a blind eye or dismiss it when it turns out that maybe it wasn't actually all fun and games for everyone involved.

I mean, I'll admit that in the past I'm sure I've laughed at the stories about members of Led Zep shoving bits of shark up someone's vagina, or the girls who would allegedly congregate outside dressing rooms holding signs with a picture of an eye, a bird and a sailor on ('eye swallow seaman') and all that, but it's really just creating a pretty nasty narrative that casts these women as insane deviant sluts with no boundaries.

And given that many of the incidents and bands that this folklore is founded on were around a time when women's rights were arguably worse than now (the 60s and 70s, although obviously the culture of that behaviour has been perpetuated since then), it's really not surprising at all that women involved might not have felt they could say anything.

This isn't coming from a place of puritanism at all, and I'm obviously not saying that any time someone shags someone in a band it's abuse. But it does seem that this concept of the groupie, and all the highly unpleasant madonna/whore stuff that goes along with that, makes it much easier for abuse (where it does happen - and I'm sure it has happened a lot) to get a free pass.

And it's an obvious point, but I'd also say that it can take a long time to realise that what you've been though is abuse or assault, especially if you're attracted to or in awe of the perpetrator.

[Noodle Lizard]

I have to say, I do find it amusing the bands that only get nerdy middle-aged blokes wanting to come backstage after the show. Years ago, I once chatted to Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal in the bar about this. He remarked that it wasn't what he imagined his fans would be like when he dreamt of being a rockstar.

My only backstage experience has been with metal bands, really. You kind of see all ends of the spectrum there. Some of the older, more established acts (Cannibal Corpse, Melvins etc.) have had long-term partners almost as long as they've been famous and are outright dismissive of any "partiers", so being backstage with them does look more like an atheist convention than any traditional image you'd have. But even nice guys like Devin Townsend have talked about their past acts of "tour infidelity", which is what leads me to believe it's something anyone can succumb to - especially when drink/drugs are involved.

The "grossest" examples I've seen have always been from young, lower-quality, flash-in-the-pan bands who probably saw a Motley Crue or Pantera documentary and assumed that's what being in a band was all about. The bad stories I've heard have tended to be from young bands with attractive members (Bring Me The Horizon, for instance, who are now bigger than I ever expected).

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

I mean, I'll admit that in the past I'm sure I've laughed at the stories about members of Led Zep shoving bits of shark up someone's vagina, or the girls who would allegedly congregate outside dressing rooms holding signs with a picture of an eye, a bird and a sailor on ('eye swallow seaman') and all that, but it's really just creating a pretty nasty narrative that casts these women as insane deviant sluts with no boundaries.

And given that many of the incidents and bands that this folklore is founded on were around a time when women's rights were arguably worse than now (the 60s and 70s, although obviously the culture of that behaviour has been perpetuated since then), it's really not surprising at all that women involved might not have felt they could say anything.

This isn't coming from a place of puritanism at all, and I'm obviously not saying that any time someone shags someone in a band it's abuse. But it does seem that this concept of the groupie, and all the highly unpleasant madonna/whore stuff that goes along with that, makes it much easier for abuse (where it does happen - and I'm sure it has happened a lot) to get a free pass.

And it's an obvious point, but I'd also say that it can take a long time to realise that what you've been though is abuse or assault, especially if you're attracted to or in awe of the perpetrator.

But you're identifying particular examples of abusive behaviour that are not present with regards to the story in question. Yes there is a misogynistic narrative about groupies as sex objects (just watch any documentary about 80s hair metal, the apex of horrible sleazoid men who thought the concept of being a "rock star" meant being abusive toward women), but there is also a counternarrative that seems to find the concept of a woman wanting to have casual sex with world famous rock star and world's handsomest man Brandon Flowers deplorable and per se evidence of abuse. That seems to me a sex-negative view that strips women of any agency.

There is no "victim" who has come forward to complain about the Killers. As far as I understand it this is a story from a crew tech that is primarily about legitimate abusive behavior by stagehands with a one paragraph anecdote thrown in about the Killers being knobs.

[flotemysost]

But you're identifying particular examples of abusive behaviour that are not present with regards to the story in question. Yes there is a misogynistic narrative about groupies as sex objects (just watch any documentary about 80s hair metal, the apex of horrible sleazoid men who thought the concept of being a "rock star" meant being abusive toward women), but there is also a counternarrative that seems to find the concept of a woman wanting to have casual sex with world famous rock star and world's handsomest man Brandon Flowers deplorable and per se evidence of abuse. That seems to me a sex-negative view that strips women of any agency.

But the story isn't about a woman having causal sex with Brandon Flowers, it's about a very drunk woman being humiliated and laughed at and put in a dangerous situation. As I said, I'm not for one moment suggesting that women can't have casual sex with famous musicians (or anyone, for that matter). Nothing deplorable about that whatsoever. But if we're taking the story at its word, then that's not what it's about, it's about a blackout drunk young woman being passed around for sex, laughed at, and then left alone, naked and passed out. I completely agree that it's important to allow women agency for their own sexual choices, and I find it frustrating when it's suggested that women can't instigate or enjoy casual sex as that's obviously not true, but that's really not the point here - nothing in that story implies that it's a healthy, consensual situation.

My point about the past examples of groupie stories (some of which might not even be true, or at least have probably been embellished for juicy scandalous value) is that there's a cultural precedent set for 'women who sleep with guys in bands', which I don't think it's completely crazy to say could make it easier for people in the industry to overlook or accept behaviour which could be abusive.

I agree it's not clear what the band members themselves' involvement might have been, if any, but I'm not really bothered about their fate in terms of ending up #cancelled or not - at the end of the day, if the story is true then either way, someone was put through a pretty horrible sounding experience and I think it's fair to look at the reasons why that could have been allowed to happen.

Edit: just re-read the blog post properly and I can see that the band members were also implicated in other shitty behaviour, so fuck 'em all. Just because it might be considered tame compared to what other bands have got up to (as if we can judge the effect on the victims based on how sleazy/extreme the story sounds to us), or because 'no victim has come forward' doesn't mean it's OK. It's not 'sex negative' to think that getting someone blind drunk and making them the butt of a group joke then having sex with them - someone who you're in a position of immense power and privilege over - is pretty fucked up.

And I maintain it's absolutely relevant that there's a history of this type of behavior, and that it's just treated as either a mucky joke or some sort of pillar of music history (as others have mentioned, a lot of musicians' autobiographies are pretty open about these anecdotes - presumably because they, or their editors, know that's what people want and expect when they read a rock star's memoir). The very fact that posts on this thread have been defending the behaviour in the Killers anecdote on the basis that it's apparently not as bad as the actions of other bands surely proves how dangerous that precedent is.

[imitationleather]

Pete Doherty would always send his roadies out to find women who were up for having sex with him. All of these bands are cancellings/convictions waiting to happen. If anything, that blog was a lot milder than I was expecting it to be.

It's horribly common and depressing as fuck.

[rue the polywhirl]

RIP what happens on the road stays on the road.

[The Mollusk]

Yeah flotemysost has pretty well covered the points I wanted to make, nicely put. And I'm glad you have because I'm hungover as fuck and finding it hard to get my brain in gear.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

It's not 'sex negative' to think that getting someone blind drunk and making them the butt of a group joke then having sex with them - someone who you're in a position of immense power and privilege over - is pretty fucked up.

Once again it seems you can't explain why they should be canceled without editorializing things that are not in the above anecdote.

(It certainly is strange being on the side of an argument defending obnoxious fratty behaviour, which I loathe probably even more than you, but I think it is important to maintain a line between (1) people or a lifestyle you don't like; and (2) sexual assault/genuine abuse. There is a worrying trend online of using the latter as a weapon to take down the former, for example Flouncer accusing Noodle Lizard of being an abuser (??).)

[Flouncer]

There is a worrying trend online of using the latter as a weapon to take down the former, for example Flouncer accusing Noodle Lizard of being an abuser (??).)

As I've said, it's not just this thread - he consistently makes the same kind of statements every time this subject comes up. Whatever the situation is he attacks the accuser, minimises what happened, and defends the accused: he's been doing it for years. You might think that his comments in this thread are fairly innocuous but I've seen him display a disgraceful attitude towards victims of sexual abuse many times over the years and this was the last straw for me. When people think like that, their actions tend to reflect their attitudes.

[flotemysost]

Once again it seems you can't explain why they should be canceled without editorializing things that are not in the above anecdote.

(It certainly is strange being on the side of an argument defending obnoxious fratty behaviour, which I loathe probably even more than you, but I think it is important to maintain a line between (1) people or a lifestyle you don't like; and (2) sexual assault/genuine abuse. There is a worrying trend online of using the latter as a weapon to take down the former, for example Flouncer accusing Noodle Lizard of being an abuser (??).)

I understand where you're coming from and perhaps my choice of wording wasn't the best, but I don't think it's fair to say I've editorialised very much or added things that weren't in the original anecdote - to clarify, I was referring to the first story (the bit about the band members themselves):

The band members (who had their own bus), would bring drunken groupies to our bus and laugh when the girls were too drunk to realize everyone was making fun of them. It was like a sport to them. They clued the audio crew into a special that they had going on. If we trolled for chicks for them, made sure we checked IDs and the girls would come backstage with the unspoken arrangement that they would blow a band member, we could get a $50 bonus.

OK, so perhaps not 'having sex' in the sense of a penis going in a vagina (if we're assuming, based solely on the above details, that this didn't happen) but it's obviously still sexual activity. (I'm sure I don't have to explain that sexual assault doesn't need to involve full on penetration.)

It's not even so much that it's "a lifestyle I don't like" and my argument certainly doesn't come from a place of prudishness. It doesn't really matter whether someone's a obnoxious fratty rockstar or the meekest mildest milquetoast there is - if you humiliate and coerce someone who's too drunk to know what's going on into having some kind of sexual activity with you, and it's all treated as a big joke (on them), then that's a fucked up thing to do, regardless of who you are or what your lifestyle is - although as I've said, I'm sure that the valorisation of those cliches probably does help to normalise it.

I understand your earlier point about women's sexual agency but I just think it's a really flimsy argument in this case. I've definitely ended up in some potentially dangerous situations in the pursuit of casual sex over the years (I'm a straight woman) and it's frustrating and depressing to think that this something we just have to accept, according to this school of thought. Unfortunately we're not on an equal playing field (although I'm not for one second suggesting that men don't also suffer from sexual abuse - I know this is woefully under-discussed) and I don't think it's puritanical to acknowledge that safety and consent are fucking important.

For instance, I don't want to not be able to get off my face and have sex with some random guy, but more than once I've been with someone who's tried to stealthily remove the condom during sex because he thinks I'm so drunk I won't notice (obviously a mild example compared to the other stuff talked about in this thread, but it's still pretty shit). But to follow the narrative playing out in this thread, it seems like rather than questioning why he would do such a dangerous and deceitful thing, we just have to assume everyone had a great time because to question it would mean you're a massive prude.

I'm just sick of seeing clearly toxic, predatory behaviour being defended under the guise of 'sex positivity', and the fact that so many people seem to jump straight to this argument, rather than considering things from the victim's point of view. I appreciate that it seems we disagree on whether the story in the OP actually does detail toxic, predatory behaviour, but if you believe that the events in the story are true (and I can't see any good reason not to) then I honestly cannot see how it could be defended.

[chveik]

As I've said, it's not just this thread - he consistently makes the same kind of statements every time this subject comes up. Whatever the situation is he attacks the accuser, minimises what happened, and defends the accused: he's been doing it for years. You might think that his comments in this thread are fairly innocuous but I've seen him display a disgraceful attitude towards victims of sexual abuse many times over the years and this was the last straw for me. When people think like that, their actions tend to reflect their attitudes.

these are pretty heavy accusations, especially when you haven't provided any evidence to back them up.

[non capisco]

Yeah flotemysost has pretty well covered the points I wanted to make, nicely put.

Seconded. Great poster in general and bossing this thread.

[non capisco]

these are pretty heavy accusations, especially when you haven't provided any evidence to back them up.

Also agree with this.

[flotemysost]

Seconded. Great poster in general and bossing this thread.

Cheers, appreciate that.

[Flouncer]

these are pretty heavy accusations, especially when you haven't provided any evidence to back them up.

I'm not going to spend my time trawling through his post history to find examples. I get really pissed off every time I see him do it, so I'm not putting myself through that just to prove a point. Since I made that post two other people have told me privately that they've observed the same thing, so I'm quite satisfied that I'm correct in what I'm saying. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.

[Hand Solo]

Pete Doherty would always send his roadies out to find women who were up for having sex with him.

Or throw people off balconies.

[phantom_power]

It's not even so much that it's "a lifestyle I don't like" and my argument certainly doesn't come from a place of prudishness. It doesn't really matter whether someone's a obnoxious fratty rockstar or the meekest mildest milquetoast there is - if you humiliate and coerce someone who's too drunk to know what's going on into having some kind of sexual activity with you, and it's all treated as a big joke (on them), then that's a fucked up thing to do, regardless of who you are or what your lifestyle is - although as I've said, I'm sure that the valorisation of those cliches probably does help to normalise it.

I am not going to defend any of the behaviour described in the article, and sure as hell not going to die on the hill of defending The Killers, but aren't you conflating two things there? There is the humiliating drunk girls who didn't know they were the butt of the joke, and then there is getting the roadies to find girls to give them sexual favours. Is there anything to suggest that the girls in the latter scenario were drunk, or humiliated?. As I said, each individual activity is shitty in its own way but combining the two with no evidence that this was the case makes them seem far more shitty

[The Mollusk]

I'm not going to spend my time trawling through his post history to find examples. I get really pissed off every time I see him do it, so I'm not putting myself through that just to prove a point. Since I made that post two other people have told me privately that they've observed the same thing, so I'm quite satisfied that I'm correct in what I'm saying. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.

Still pretty brutal though, man. I'm not accusing the chap of being either of these things (though I don't agree with his views on this subject matter), but you don't have to be a rapist to be a rape apologist.

[flotemysost]

Is there anything to suggest that the girls in the latter scenario were drunk, or humiliated?. As I said, each individual activity is shitty in its own way but combining the two with no evidence that this was the case makes them seem far more shitty

I think in my initial post here I did make the mistake of conflating the two stories, but having read through it a few times now, it makes clear reference to the women in both scenarios (those regularly brought onto the bus for the band, and the woman in the 'Dressing Room A' anecdote) being noticeably very drunk.

As for whether or not they were humiliated, I guess that's sort of the crux of the debate going on in this thread. Of course we can't know for certain that the scenarios recounted in the blog post were humiliating experiences for all of the women involved, but I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that it doesn't sound like the other people involved were motivated by respect for these women, or giving much thought to their safety, especially in the dressing room story.