Rape Me

Posted: March 19, 2011 in Uncategorized

You can’t desire non-consensual sex can you? You can’t want to be raped? SO why does this fantasy fill our culture? From Nirvana, to Wuthering Heights, to Gone With The Wind, Lolita, to Sado Masochists, to the Daily Mail and The Feminists, battling it out for the rights to ‘rape’ discourse?

I have been involved in a discussion, of sorts, about a recent case which was reported in The Daily Mail, of two 12 year old girls being ‘gang raped’ by some young footballers in the UK.


It led me to make this observation:

People have been quoting that remark as a way of dismissing me as an ‘asshole’ who must have an agenda for my views on de-criminalising under age sex. (What do you think I want to do? Be 15 again and go back there to find out if my crush really was worried about breaking the law or in fact just didn’t want me after all? NO thanks).

And I have been thinking about ‘rape’ and desire. And being young. And wanting to be raped.  And guess what?


  1. Is this a comment on statutory rape, or a comment on rape fantasy? Because they’re both quite different topics (equally interesting, though).

    (While I too would have quite happily thrown the age of consent to the wind, I’d still balk at the idea of twelve year-olds in a group sex scenario truly knowing what they were doing, and getting into. That comes from an advocate of polyamory).

    • it’s a comment on the whole damn subject of ‘rape’ in discourse Lucy!

      I am not saying those girls knew what they were doing. I am saying I don’t like the way ‘statutory rape’ implies no girl can ever know what she is doing until she is 16 when suddenly she has to know completely what she is doing.

      • McDuff says:

        And yet on the other comment thread even positions which were far from that summary were discounted. What’s a boy to do with all these mixed messages?

  2. Sorry to interrupt the baiting hyperbole for a minute here, and point out – yet again – that there’s a massive difference between children who are aged 13 and under, and those who are aged 14 – 16.

    The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (s.9) says:

    (1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

    (b)the touching is sexual, and


    (i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

    (ii)B is under 13.

    (2)A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—

    (a)penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

    (b)penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

    (c)penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or

    (d)penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,

    is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.


    See the distinction they draw?

    The debate was never about sex between two people of a similar age who happen to be on slightly different sides of the barrier of the age of 16 – the story referred to two 12 year olds and six 19-21 year olds.

    Do I think it is rape if a grown man sleeps with a 12 year old, regardless of however the child acted? Yes. Do I think it is rape if a 15 year old and a 16 year old sleep together? No.

    Have you heard of the Gillick Competence test? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence) Although it originated in medical law, it is being used increasingly in other areas of law that deal with the needs and rights of maturing adolescents – including sexually active ones aged between 14 – 16. Essentially, we can say that someone under a prescribed age *is* mature enough to act of their own volition and accept the consequences, but that the courts may intervene if the person isn’t.

    I agree that people mature at different rates, and what may be right for one person under 16 (or under 14, for that matter) may be wrong for another. However, for the protection of children in general, we must have these arbitrary times in life.

    • Henry says:

      Well then you must understand that you’ve broadened (and weakened) the definition of rape if you say that.

      I find it frustrating that people fail to understand this fact. But maybe the whole point of using the same word for different scenarios is simply to tar different men with the same brush.

      • Sorry Henry, but I don’t think so.

        No matter how broad a definition of rape is, people should still be horrified by it. Whether rape is viewed in the ‘traditional’ way (i.e. man uses violence to force entry into a woman’s vagina with his penis) or a ‘non-traditional’ way (e.g. the crimes Julian Assange is accused of), it is still about someone in a position of power (whether it be physical or emotional) using that power in order to take one of the most personal and important things – sexual autonomy – from the victim.

        This is true whether the offender/s and victim/s are male, female, or transgendered.

        Your comment about ‘tar[ring] different men with the same brush’ is an attempt to say that ‘some rapes are worse than others’. Well, they’re not.

        Rape is rape. If you say some rapes are worse than others, you are legitimising (whether intentionally or not – and I’m assuming it’s unintentional) the rapes you deem as ‘less bad’. Let me try and explain. If you say ‘The rape of a young child is worse than the rape of a grown man’, you are implying that a) there is something about the grown man which means that he could have done something about his victimisation and b) he does not deserve to be ascribed the status of ‘true victim’. In doing this, you allow would-be rapists to justify their actions to themselves.

        Now, I am in no way putting these words in your mouth, or implying that you believe them. I assume you do not. I am just extending your argument to it’s conclusion to show why, no matter how broad the definition of rape is, to discriminate between the ‘types’ of rape is to give a horrific act legitimacy in the eyes of some.

      • McDuff says:

        How is it you think the definition of “rape” is broadened and/or weakened?

        What did you think “rape” meant before? What does it mean now that the SR laws are as they stand?

    • Henry says:

      Hi Natalie I can’t seem to respond to your reply so will reply here.

      I think it’s self-evident that there is a moral difference between someone who is unaware he is committing a crime (unaware of the other person’s age) and someone who is involved in eg: gang-rape. In what sense is this legitimizing either? Not legally, not morally, so how?

      The language we use should reflect this difference otherwise there is danger of confusion and using the word to make an act sound better or worse than it is or different).

      Your response is very considered, but I don’t see how a) and b) are “implied”. I think you still have to prove that to me.

      Possibly in legal terms (if that is an area you are well-informed in) it may follow, but I’m thinking in terms of the meanings of words we all use and how they are misused to make situations seem other than they are. In that sense words can be used – for political reasons – to muddy our understanding of complex human situations and we can’t afford that.

      With the child vs grown man scenario you state. Well saying one is “worse” than another could itself mean different things. Noone is going to be able to agree on a scale of 0-100 of how much evil in any act, but one might elicit more horror than the other, though. I think that’s tangential to what I’m on about – though v interesting.

  3. hi Natalie thanks for your comment. But this is my blog and on my space I write about things which interest me (and a growing number of readers/contributors).

    I am not baiting anyone or anything I am expressing myself, as you do on your blog.

    I hope you respect that and me here. It is my gaff.


    • this law still would mean an 18 year old could not legally have sex with a 15 year old even if they were in a relationship. a few months later and they could legally marry.
      this to me is ridiculous.

      • I’m not saying you’re wrong on that, but surely you must see that, from a utilitarian point of view, sometimes we must have these arbitrary dates?

        There are plenty of things I disagree with on this matter – I find it shocking that you can sign up for the army at 16, but can’t ‘decide’ to drink or smoke until the age of 18. However, the fact that all people (regardless of gender or sexuality) are deemed incapable of informed consent below the age of 13 is, I think, a good thing.

  4. I appreciate that – of course on your blog you are entitled to say whatever you wish. However, I just wanted to make you aware of the distinctions that are drawn in law, as I thought they might interest you.

  5. I am not a law maker and I am not going to lobby to change the law here. It would be a losing battle anyway.

    But no, from a philosophical perspective, I do not believe it goes without saying that laws on children and sexuality protect children from harm. It is impossible to prove, as the laws are there and no doubt always will be, as I am afraid, so will harm of children.

    • McDuff says:

      It also is far from without saying that laws are the source or the exacerbation of that harm. I understand that there probably are some esoteric theories of human behaviour that would make perfectly moral behaviour fall out of nothing more complicated than a complete overhaul of the way we approach sexuality, but I have my doubts as to the practical applicability and, as such, their actual value as philosophical positions.

      It’s trivially true that pretty much any idea for changing the world into being a better place will work, provided that you first get rid of all the wankers who will take advantage of the things you didn’t think of. Given how often grand schemes to remake the world into a better place fall foul of the real life impossibility of eradicating the wankers, I don’t think it’s actually philosophically unsound to include “what are the most obvious ways that this could go completely tits up?” in the analysis of any far-reaching ideas to remove an imperfect solution and replace it with a completely untried one.

      Of course, since you’re not actually suggesting any policy considerations yourself, it might be that you think you can safely be excluded from these things since practicalities are boring and the whole thing is inconsequential anyway. I can safely, in this case, agree with you that in a perfect world where everyone was sexually secure, the need for the complex structure of consent to be rough-hewn into ugly and imperfect legislative breeze blocks would be greatly lessened, and that this would be a good thing. However, if a man’s broken arm was caused by being run over with a car it does not imply that it can be fixed by reversing the car back over him. Even within the antiseptic world of thought experiments in perfect worlds that can never exist I am not entirely sure that delving ever deeper into hypothetical results of experiments that can never be run has that much explanatory power. Eventually it’s all so much beard stroking and pipe smoking, and we could come out at the end in complete agreement about the solutions to the problems of our imaginary world and still not have any insights into the problems of the real one.

      Perhaps if you veered out of the Jesus Conditional Tense it might help. We should stop criminalising juvenille sexuality, you say? Absolutely. Fine, laudible goal. Now, how do we, non-deities as we are, start to *do that*?

      • I dont understand most of what you have written but I have got the last bit.

        I think to stop criminalising juvenile sexuality we need to change how we perceive, talk to and about young people and their sexualities.

        I am doing this via my writing and through engaging with people, including some young people.

        I do engage with legal matters as well. But what I meant was I am not going to draft a new law or a proposed change to the law in this case. The world is not ready for that I am being called an apologist for child abuse.

        Thanks for the comment.

  6. Juliet Shaw says:

    As you say in the comments, this is your blog and you have every right to write whatever you want in it. However, I also have the right to disagree vehemently with everything you have said here and on the No Sleep Til Brooklands blog.

    As the mother of a soon-to-be 12 year old, let me assure you that the physical attributes of a child that age have absolutely no similarity to those of a woman or, indeed, a girl in their mid to late teens. So first of all, whether these girls were wearing make-up, dressing ‘provocatively’ or sending suggestive text messages to the six grown men, the very moment one of the men made sexual advances and realised they had not developed breasts or pubic hair, they would have known immediately that these girls were children. Not pubescent girls, but children. There are also the more intimate physical indicators distinguishing a child from a woman which would not have been mistakeable.

    Secondly, I find your refusal to accept that a 12 year old child cannot have the mental or physical maturity to consent to a sexual relationship offensive. The sexualisation of children in the media and in pop has made it acceptable for children to wander around singing, “Come here rude boy, can you get it up”, or “The smell of sex is in the air, it excites me”. So, a 12 year old sending ‘suggestive’ texts is them doing nothing more than relaying what they’ve heard in pop and media culture. They’re conditioned to using sexual innuendo before they know what it means.

    My daughter is 11, almost 12. She plays with Build a Bears, she reads Jacqueline Wilson books and she loves playing out on her bike. She also knows all the words to Rihanna’s S&M. The thought that she could be raped by a grown man terrifies me. To think that she would then be villified in the national media and by people such as yourself because she was ‘asking for it’ because she was singing ‘the smell of sex is in the air, whips and chains excite me’ while she was playing out on her bike horrifies and sickens me.

    I really don’t know what your motives are for writing this post, and your comments on the No Sleep Til Brooklands blog. I can only imagine you are doing it for shock value, because the alternative is that you are advocating the rape of children.

    • I am not going for shock value Julia.

      I understand what it is to be a girl I was 12 once too.

      I am not saying those girls were not raped. I do not know the details of the case except for what I have read on blogs, which I do not count as legal evidence.

    • McDuff says:


      I do not want to imply here that I’m suggesting anything about your daughter specifically. But there are some absolutes that I’m not sure are altogether justified there. Juvenile sexuality is a mess of hormones and instincts that forms in clumps. There is a massive jump between experimenting with “playing doctor” when you’re pre-pubescent and consenting to a kinky gang bang when you’re a sexually mature adult, but most people don’t make that jump in one go, they travel along a bumpy path that’s different for everyone.

      I don’t also think that blaming “the media” for sexualising youth is especially apt. There are ebbs and flows about what is considered acceptable, and what is considered sexual, for that matter, and it has been ever thus. Children talked about willies and bums when I was a kid, it doesn’t mean their innocence is being stripped from them in an unprecedented manner that should frighten us.

      Where I think I tend to agree with Elly is in some of her implied notions that we can get *way* too precious about sex when kids are involved. As I said on the other thread, saying a 12 year old girl can’t consent to a gang bang in a park is not the same thing as saying that she couldn’t consent to another 12 year old girl sticking a finger in her vagina to see what happens, which is sort of a “sexual relationship.” Most kids are starting to experiment with masturbation around the age of 12, and this was true well before the internet. It’s probably not the kind of thing we want to be too aware of, but it’s also not the kind of thing that should freak us out. Some kids don’t get there till 16, some are starting at 9. It’s a big fat range during which concepts of “normal” get thrown out of the window for children.

      Now, for above-mentioned reasons of practicality I don’t see any particular need to do anything more with the existing SR laws than perhaps nudge them around the edges on occasion, and here is where I think QRG and I diverge the most: that I think it should always be illegal for an 18 year old to fuck a 12 year old, and that making that not the case wouldn’t result in any drop in the rape of children. I don’t think it follows from the notion that 11 year olds are at the very least proto-sexual beings that our laws as currently instituted do more harm than good, wheras from what I can gather she does, or has at least strongly suggested it.

      I don’t know. I think, if I can be forgiven in my attempts to tease meaning out of the Collected Works here, that there’s some suggestion here of “if we stopped freaking out about sex and instead talked to our kids about it, there’d be less need for them to try it out by sneaking out and pretending to be 16 and getting raped by some scumbags” or something, and probably something about a net decrease in total number of scumbags too. If I’m right it’s the kind of thing that looks like victim-blaming if only because it’s so intellectually detached from the practicalities of the case in question as to not pay much attention to certain niceties and caveats. It’s a little bit too pat and handwavy for my tastes, but I don’t think QRG is advocating the rape of children.

      • McDuff says:

        Juliet? Hah! Sorry about that. I was quite clearly thinking “too soon marred are girls so early made” (or however the actual line goes when her father is talking about selling off his 13 year old daughter to be married)

  7. I think — and this isn’t an anti-feminist attack — that women are their own worst enemies when it comes to rape discourse (although that’s not to say that men had no hand in the laws that shaped the concept). Because we have these rape fantasies — and rightly, we have spoken about them — we somehow come to undermine the term “rape.”

    These issues are all linked in a way, though. Many of us have fantasies about being “forced against our will” in some fashion because the man desires us so very much (we’re just that awesome); or we want that humiliation, for whatever reason we come to crave such things. These desires speak to the primal part of us — the part we associated with consensual, pleasurable sex. We want to explain them, justify them; why we call them rape fantasies I’ll never know, because there’s nothing primal about actual rape.

    There’s nothing primal about the calculated manner of a rapist, and there’s nothing primal about how an older (or more experienced) person might manipulate a younger person just beginning to recognise their primal desires. That’s why statutory rape is classed as rape, even if a level of consent is there.

    Are the age ranges correct? I think you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Our country has a screwed up attitude to sex and I’m not sure we can hope to emulate the lower consent ages and lower teen pregnancy ages that we see in some parts of Europe. What we might consider with our teen birth rate, though, is that the age of consent is directly linked to the age it might be a good idea to become a parent, since sex is ultimately about reproduction. Lower that age and you’re saying something rather provocative about when a person can be a good parent, and when they stop being a child themselves. It’s tricky.

    If we did want to lower the age of consent, we’d have to stop preaching about waiting to have sex until you’re in love (some people don’t fall in love for a very long time). We’d have to start talking about how you have sex for pleasure, rather than because you’re in love. We’d be expecting a level of self esteem from young boys and girls that we’re not currently nurturing, and we’d have to start taking a far more relaxed attitude towards sex — can you imagine what the Daily Mail would have to say about that? 😛

  8. I dont know Mcduff. My suggestion is you make your style of argument less annoying. I can’t see the wood for the trees with you. It is a bit like reading a Daily Mail article reading your comments. Lose the parodies of what you think I have said and just make a straight point!

  9. To be fair, Elly, since most people do “get away” with statutory rape (unless it’s a big case like this — and rightly, this should be highlighted) then I think the laws stand ok. A girl mature enough to be thinking about sex responsibly (as she should be, and as her partner should be) knows that the law doesn’t undermine her choice because most “offenders” aren’t prosecuted (I’m talking about people in consensual, happy relationships).

    If she does want to call on the law, or indeed if her parents do (and parents have a fair say in the welfare of their children) then she can do so.

    • i know what you mean but laws have a habit of reflecting wider perspectives in society and it is those perspectives I am challenging, and getting stick for doing so it seems. so it is obviously a contentious subject.

      • What if for you, good sex is about giving up the power?(Ie a submissive). What if you realise that on some level early on, but don’t know how to judge an ideal candidate for your domination simply because you don’t have the knowledge or experience? Very dangerous game (This is about women who don’t live BDSM lifestyles as well as those who do).

        The problem isn’t that we have a law which serves to protect those who aren’t ready for sex. The problem is that we don’t know how to provide for, or foster the attitudes of, those who *are* ready. The two should be able to coexist.

  10. charlee says:

    its all about power and corruption thereof?
    [assuming we desire ‘positive outcomes’]

    there are many ‘languages’ of power
    there are few laws made by human that hurt no one
    having no law hurts the most vulnerable
    having laws can hurt the most vulnerable
    most law becomes corrupted in application at some point

    society is cofused, especially about power

    these issues are complex discussion between supposedly conflicting places
    but the truth is easily felt?

  11. Nico says:

    Isn’t it interesting, and charming, really, how the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (s.9) (quoted by Natalie, above) reads like the index to a porn anthology?

    • Yes Nico you are so right!! It also assumes the offender is always male using the pronoun ‘he’.

      • Alex says:

        No it doesn’t. It quite specifically allows for younger B penetrating criminally pervy A. The ‘he’ thing is almost certainly the “male is gender neutral” phenomenon feminists are always complaining about.

      • Alex says:

        What I thought was interesting though is how fixated the law is on penetration. External fanny-rubbing or a lick around the bell-end are, it seems, entirely legal. This can’t be good.

  12. McDuff says:

    Lucy Morgan

    “The problem isn’t that we have a law which serves to protect those who aren’t ready for sex. The problem is that we don’t know how to provide for, or foster the attitudes of, those who *are* ready.”

    I think that is an *excellent* way of saying it.

  13. Elise says:

    I’ve been in quite a few online discussions with women about rape fantasies versus IRL rape. Lots of people have lots of kinds of fantasies that have nothing to do with IRL experiences. I’m willing to bet some men have fantasies of committing rape that they are *even less inclined* to discuss in any venue than women are willing to discuss their rape fantasies. Unfortunately, the people who formulate sex legislation have a very, very hard time distinguishing between sexual fantasy and sexual reality, and even if they were more, let’s say, sexually sophisticated, it may be that the nature of law itself cannot accommodate such difficult distinctions that have to do with the human imagination and psychology. I once found a great second-hand feminist book on male versus female porn consumption (the old “men are visual, women prefer written porn with characters and romance”) which discussed rape fantasy in a rational fashion. Unfortunately I can never remember the name of the author or book, which was, I *think*, published in the 80s!

    Sort of OT, but I’ve noticed that whether it comes to photographs or drawings (I haven’t tried the videos), gay male porn is *much* more of a turn-on than attempts by women to create heterosexual visual porn for women. Gay men really get it right. I’ve even gotten some agreement from lesbians.

    • I prefer gay porn as well. But then it only has men in it and if you are a ‘heterosexual’ woman into men, it provides that unadulterated.

      Once you start watching ‘heterosexual’ porn as a woman you become more implicated in it I find. You have to think about ‘being a woman’.

      In terms of rape fantasy though, I don’t find much gay porn that deals with that in a satisfactory way. I am staying in touch with Mr Simpson not because I find him so intellectually stimulating and such an oracle on popular cultural forms of masculinity, but because I am sure he is sitting on a stash of excellent porno and he will hand it over in the end…

  14. Natalie it is telling to me that all the examples you use to illustrate your point are of men raping women/girls. This proves Henry’s point I believe.

    I agree with Henry.

    • “This is true whether the offender/s and victim/s are male, female, or transgendered”

      “‘is worse than the rape of a grown man’”

      • I was referring to this:

        ‘No matter how broad a definition of rape is, people should still be horrified by it. Whether rape is viewed in the ‘traditional’ way (i.e. man uses violence to force entry into a woman’s vagina with his penis) or a ‘non-traditional’ way (e.g. the crimes Julian Assange is accused of), it is still about someone in a position of power (whether it be physical or emotional) using that power in order to take one of the most personal and important things – sexual autonomy – from the victim.’

    • Re: the quote of examples. That is TWO examples, both of which happened to be about male-propagated heterosexual rape. I accept that, but don’t accept that this means I only focus on this type of rape. The reason I used the first is because I was describing the ‘traditional’ view of rape, and the second was a reference to a non-traditional form of rape using an example that has been given lots of publicity recently. It was in no way an attempt to decry or denigrate any other form of rape.

      • As far as I am concerned the ‘traditional view’ of rape is that nasty men rape poor innocent women. This is the ‘traditional’ image portrayed in society.

        Like Henry said there are lots of ways of tarring men with different brushes.

        But you can make out you are an equal opportunities rape expert if you wish.

    • “Rape is rape. If you say some rapes are worse than others, you are legitimising (whether intentionally or not – and I’m assuming it’s unintentional) the rapes you deem as ‘less bad’. Let me try and explain. If you say ‘The rape of a young child is worse than the rape of a grown man’, you are implying that a) there is something about the grown man which means that he could have done something about his victimisation and b) he does not deserve to be ascribed the status of ‘true victim’. In doing this, you allow would-be rapists to justify their actions to themselves.”

      I don’t see how anyone needs to be an ‘equal opportunities rape expert’ to know that all rape is wrong.

      • I find the term ‘rape’ is what the problem is here. It is used to make lots of different things into the same thing. as Henry said.

      • you havent disproved anything love. You have stated your opinion which I disagree with. This is not a court of law or rather a legal textbook.

        I disagree with using the term ‘rape’ as a catch-all for sex that is either non-consensual or with under age people. So does Henry that’s all.

  15. ALEX: Feminists are not complaining about ‘he’ being ‘gender neutral’ in rape law because they assume all rapists are men! Which is my point.

    Also he is not gender neutral. You are the linguist you know that.

    Kisses xx

    • Alex says:

      They complain about it all the time for other things though. They just tend to pick their battles and mostly seem content to let legal language keep its fusty old pronouns.

      And I do know that. I’m a massive partisan of singular ‘they’. Gender-neutral ‘he’ is not only a big old bollocks myth and a perpetuation of patriarchal hegemony and stuff, it’s also utterly unworkable in actual communication.

      • yes I agree. You are right that feminists pick their battles. I think they do it politically and the ‘he’ as a perpetrator of any crime, especially sexual assault, is convenient to their project.

      • Alex says:

        Not really. Opposition to a gender-neutral he in law would have to be part of a mass pronoun-overhaul of all legal documentation. Probably not many feminists can be arsed with one of those.

        Don’t forget ‘he’ also posits men as the victim, or witness, or indirect beneficiary, or unwilling accomplice, or lawyer for the prosecution, or signatory, or pretty much anyone that isn’t specifically a woman for the purposes of that legislation. Which is the real question, really: is the victim ‘she’?

  16. ALEX(sorry replies all a bit f-ed up): I think they might come under ‘molestation’ or even ‘sexual assault’ if they were non-consensual (or underage or both).

    But yes ‘rape’ is all about dick in hole. Good point well made.

    • well I think it is assumed by feminists that the victim is she. I admit its not posited in law but the victim does not have so much legislation written about ‘him’ or her.

      It is an interesting issue and like you say, one which most feminists can’t be arsed to have!

      • Alex says:

        I think they probably debated the issue a couple of weeks after ‘The Second Sex’ came out in translation. Then decided to put changing the pronouns in the entire body of law just above “truly gender-neutral stick-figures” on their list of priorities.

  17. elflojo84 says:

    Seems like I missed the boat on this one which is a shame, I had an interesting experience once upon a time as the ‘victim’ in a rape fantasy roleplay type thing. Kind of know what you’re driving at. I never planned it, or fantasised about ti before, but in theat moment it just came up

  18. inkadinkadoo says:

    Funny how people here have an idea of 12 years old (or less <:) as being off limits (both to pervy cradle robbers and due mental non-development ) , probably think 14/15 year olds are “no problem — and shouldn’t be”. Yet they’d be considered just as pervy and extremist and irresponsible by the majority of acceptable opinion as they feel the NAMBLA-type crowd is.
    And then of that majority, those who think 16/17 is just “fine”, would be objects to horrify and fascinate, by their pedophile brains, the majority of that majority.

    Like circles of hell.

    Before the war between 12 is O.K. and 16 is O.K. can start, the 16 is O.K.’ers have to take on the 19-is-better-than-18 O.K.’ers.

  19. Nirvana was a cool band.

    Really loved Alice In Chains and Soundgarden

    That’s all I have to say.

    • Alex says:

      Soundgarden were definitely the best of that lot. For the record, I think QRG might have lumped ‘Rape Me’ in with ‘Lolita’ unfairly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s