The most recent accusations of pedophilia and sexual abuse by Chicago-born R&B singer R. Kelly has struck up some very interesting commentary from outsiders, “reformed players” and people I know personally. I’ve concluded long ago that celebrities, like society’s most remarkable and “brightest and best” people, have some very dark and deviant personality traits – some of which stems from their own troubled and dysfunctional past.
Now before I get into my thoughts on the #MuteRKelly phenomena, I just want to say that I am in no way, shape or form condoning or justifying the actions of any pedophile, sexual abuser or child abuser. But as some of my readers and subscribers already know, I have a fascination with the dark side of human nature. Then again, most of us do to a degree: some folks root for villains and other assorted assholes in movies, books and entertainment. Some people enjoy hard liquor, some of us prefer our company of the opposite sex to be experienced, wild and uninhibited freaks – others prefer to question and deviate from what society considers “normalcy”. In fact, the world’s most innovative, creative and objective people would rather use and abuse drugs or commit suicide rather than live a life of “normalcy”. When you think of it, this is a vital reason why portions of the younger generation prefers association or having sex with “rebels”, or “bad boys” and “bad bitches”.
Now, I don’t want to list too many, because I don’t want to miss to many. And it would take up an entire website to devote naming celebrities, freedom fighters (activists) and innovators who have mild to extreme drug and sex addictions, financial woes, promiscuous and “out there” sex lives, dysfunctional and broken or abusive families, tempers and anger problems that led them in and out of jail or prison, etc… We have all heard of celebrities coming from abusive households (DMX, the Jackson family, Gary Coleman, Tyler Perry, R. Kelly, etc…), high school dropouts (Nas, Mary J. Blige, Chow Yun-Fat, Barry White, The Weeknd, etc…), those with dark pasts (Chris Brown, Miles Davis, Eminem, Pat Morita, Mike Tyson, Richard Pryor, Judge Greg Mathis, most black rappers who were exposed to sex and violence at a very early age, etc…) and then there’s others who’ve had near-death experiences. Hell, even activists and innovators have dark sides that goes (MLK had a thing for white hookers – Oliver Stone planned a movie depicting this which was shut down by the NAACP, Malcolm X was a former pimp before discovering the Nation Of Islam, Gandhi was a bisexual racist and a woman-beating pedophile, Tariq Nasheed might have been a former pimp, Einstein was promiscuous, etc…). Nearly half of American presidents throughout history owned slaves, had mistresses and “slave girls” and preached what they never practiced.
In short, it’s dark sides and flaws that make people interesting. Not saint-like “snowflakes”.
So why is it that most celebrities have dysfunctional pasts and reckless tendencies? While some have endured severe tragedies and setbacks, most black entertainers, for example, grew up in single parent homes, and yet still beat the odds. Chances are, if they did come from “strong, perfect families”, their creativity would be robbed and their patriarchs would have pushed the warped idea of “normalcy” (i.e., 4.0 GPAs < college < middle class home < nuclear family package deals). I’m not implying that all rags-to-riches stories happen because of abuse, poverty, neglect or rejection, but these things can be used as a motivating factor for special people – which may tap into intrinsic talent, luck, reputation and connections.
Creative people and freedom fighters engage in reckless behaviors either by choice or it could be their way of working with the hand dealt to them. To me, this is a lot deeper than money being a reason why celebrities, musicians and athletes can buy their way out of trouble and get away with shit civilian people cannot. This also has similarities to ghetto lotharios who walk to their own beat.
Regardless of how “fucked-up” polite and respectable society paints them out to be, many people would rather spend time reading about them, being entertained by them, emulating their mannerisms and becoming “groupies” for them than those mediocre godly-types who walked some straight and narrow path of life.
Now on to the recent R. Kelly accusations… The apparently fucked-up “pied piper of R&B” was molested by his older sister up until his adolescence. In 2002, he was accused of making a sex tape which captured him giving an underaged girl a “golden shower”. Nearly two decades later, the Lifetime Channel decides to make a docu-series entitled Surviving R. Kelly, where several women step forward and accuse him of pedophilia, sexual abuse and leading a “sex cult” (or pragmatically speaking, being a polygamist). While there’s this display of fake outrage from people asking “how could this have gone on for so long?” consider some things…
1] If R. Kelly – or anybody else for that matter – sexually abused these women they were underaged, where the fuck were the parents? I mean, it’s not as if they were dropped off at their father’s or uncle’s house. Were these women that rebellious and diabolical in their teenage years? or did some of the parents loan their kids out to be rented for financial gain and promise of a lavish lifestyle? But even then, is it that much different from paying a babysitter to monitor kids who aren’t old enough to defend themselves? or sending kids to band camp, afterschool or church activities where anything goes? How about parents who allow their student-athlete offspring to spend nights or weeks at their football coach’s suburbanite home (a la Jerry Sandusky)? Then there’s the issue of parents putting their kids off on the “educational” system not knowing if their kid is being fucked with…
2] Pertaining to the issue of child abuse, it’s very easy to prove someone being abused in a physical or sexual manner. Psychological abuse is nearly impossible to prove. If it were, many parents, teachers, authority figures and abusive SOs and spouses would be in prison. That said, how would R. Kelly’s actions be any different from black parents who push their kids into sports and show business to live vicariously through them? or Asian “tiger moms” who are hellbent on enforcing obedience and academic overachievement onto their kids? How is this less damaging than women who use kids as paychecks via “the child support hustle”?
3] Here’s the sad part: If R. Kelly was a priest in the Catholic church, or someone like a schoolteacher, Amy Chua, Jerry Sandusky, Joe Jackson or a member of NAMBLA, he probably wouldn’t face the scrutiny he’s facing at the start of 2019. Regardless if those young girls he supposedly molested were white or black, or if the children he preyed on were boys instead. It would be accepted in the court of public opinion, because for one, the Catholic priests would most likely be white. Two, people are brainwashed into thinking priests, popes and pastors speak this “infallible word of god” and they – like Tiger Moms and sports-obsessed dads – actually give a shit about the people they are mind-fucking into subordination.
4] Oh, I forgot… If R. Kelly was yet another white female teacher arranging her male high school students to bust a train on her, even then, it wouldn’t be as newsworthy as it would be if he were a male, let alone a black male. Yes, you can’t really compare adult men messing with underaged girls to teen boys voluntarily penetrating a grown woman who threw them some pussy. Why? Well, look up “sexual dimorphism”.
Again, I’m not defending the actions of R. Kelly not one bit. But we can see where this may lead in addition to the fake outrage. Where was this outrage when priests, popes in the Vatican and pastors in religious centers get caught molesting children, or knowingly spread HIV to their “clients”? or when some pedophile creates a website entitled NAMBLA? or when white rock musicians have affairs with their underaged fans? As far as I’m concerned, this pedophilia shit could have been squashed long ago – but I guess, that depends on who’s doing it, right?
In regards to radical feminists and their dickless beta males acting like teacher’s pets telling people not to support R. Kelly’s music, I’ll personally be ignoring that. So should we stop listening to musicians based off past domestic violence beefs, or having peculiar sex lives, or living as homosexuals, former male gigolos and drug addicts who can barely function sober? You see, even male feminists like Toure (who appeared on the Lifetime docu-series) are venal hypocrites who assume that joining the radical feminist bandwagon would give them immunity from sexual harassment accusations. Well, guess what? IT DID NOT!
Anyway… why is the deviant or “abusive” sex lives of entertainers and activists more newsworthy than that of politicians, religious leaders and authority figures – even though the actions of the latter group is possibly more damaging than that of entertainers?