On Kellz...

It's a fairly unpopular subject I know, but it is one of those things in popular culture that strikes at the root of a lot of things I believe. As educated people we need to be serious about solutions and I tire of misguided outrage which gives us permission to turn out brains off in the name of presenting a pretty image. My beliefs stand up to facts and logic, I don't mean that people's emotional responses are wrong, but you owe the world some level of self examination.

First of all let me admit, I am a fan of R. Kelly's music. I think dude makes some good music, even though most of the recent stuff is more ignorant/ funny, I am cool with dude. It's music, entertainment is entertainment, I don't get ultra offended. However apparently that makes me a sketchy individual because now that there has been a not guilty verdict I should be marching around with such great outrage because this pedophile has been released and if you believe in God, Justice and are not in favor of raping black women you should condemn his acquittal. I am being sent emails with the so-called "black male" response calling on ending the exploitive treatment of black women like this is going to be a real Rosa Parks movement for Black America. I have lost friends for my position on the subject matter, but come on we people have got to do better.

R. Kelly is sick. He obviously does not care about sleeping with teenagers, he is a grimey motherfucker, there is no question about that. Was he guilty of a crime? More than likely. Was he guilty of the crime that they charged him for? That is less certain. Did the prosecution come close to proving their case? Hell no, the ran a trial based upon the emotional responses of the people who I have conflict with right now, who can't understand the issue well enough to prosecute it.

The point is that R. Kelly is not a pedophile. A pedophile is described as a person who is sexually attracted to a child. A child is described as a person between the ages of birth and puberty. Once a person has passed the age of puberty and are an adolescent or teenager there is a very large psychological, legal, and societal grey area that people don't like to deal with. In psychology the definition of an adult who is attracted to a person in this post puberty/ pre-adulthood stage is ephobilia. In the law under certain circumstances a person as young as 13 has been held to be an adult to face criminal charges, yet a person as old as 21 is not consider an adult for the ability to drink. A 14 year old can consent to sexual contact with a person up to 18 years old, yet not with anyone above 19 years old. In society, thousands of fourteen year olds are pregnant by men of all different ages, proms and school dances consistently add maximum age provisions because some people just don't see the problem with their 15 year old daughter having a 26 year old "boyfriend."

This argument has people accuse me of being petty. I am justifying a dirty old man sleeping and pissing on a 13 year old. I am sick and disturbing and I have issues. Why draw the line? Sick is sick. I have two responses. First the line is important because the super majority of people believe that pedophilia is wrong, when you attempt to expand the definition into fields that all evidence points to the fact is not a universally held belief you lessen the power of the term and you open yourself up to losing trials. Had the prosecution argued the legal merits of the case instead of trying to condemn a monster they would have won the case, but instead they presented salacious evidence with tremendous holes in it in the name of holding this man up as the face of evil. They learned the hard way that this view was not universally held.

My second response is the folks, particularly educated black folks need to get their heads out of their asses. I see more negroes walk around strutting with a sense of superiority because they have this degree or that degree yet whenever any issue comes up negroes pretend like their degree is nothing but another fancy accessory like their Prada bag. I am not saying that you need to necessarily agree with my argument, I can even give you a pass if you want to argue that the definition isn't important, but the concept that making a valid intellectual argument in term makes you the devil is the most backward slave plantation thinking ever you educated Niggas need to do better.

My position, so that it is on the record, is this:

1. I do not care about the jury verdict. Had he been convicted I would not be claiming a black victory, and I am not claiming a victory at his acquittal. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the underlying issue affecting the community.

2. Explain the outrage. People scream that this is so wrong, but I need to know what was so wrong. Is the issue that the age difference was too great? That the girl was too young? That he was too rich? That he urinated on her? That he videotaped it? What is the outrage people are feeling? This matters because if the mass coalition of the outraged people were to ever try to define their outrage they would find that their agreement was falling apart. This matters because I have to ask where the continued outrage was when the video came out. My opinion is that there needs to be an age set, like 16/17 which is a universal age of consent no matter how old the other party is. I also believe that pissing on a woman whether she is 14 or 50 means you are a sick fuck. People don't think about the reason for statutory rape laws.

If the girl needs protection because she does not have the cognitive development to consent then it does not matter how old the other party is. Of course cognitive development is generally an argument that requires a case by case examination and opens up the question of whether individuals who sleep with someone who is physically of age, though not mentally, yet not disabled to the point of currently being illegal should be prosecuted if they fall in the level of development that we are arguing is not sufficient to consent to sexual activity. The statutory argument is that a law must be passed for the maintenance of an orderly society and there is an age under which that while a person who could legitimately make the decision to engage in sexual intercourse should not have that right, similar to the right to vote and to drink. This is a law that people would support, even those who did not think that it was a big deal would be willing to convict because the "law is the law" and it is applied fairly. This of course bothers people because people want to protect the "right" I suppose for their 14 year old daughter to get busted down by her 15 year old boyfriend when neither are old enough to work in order to support that child. Of course supporting a examination of the law and its purpose would require people to:

3. Face the hypocrisy. Is that so? R. Kelly case shows the exploitation of Black Women and we must stand up to degrading behavior? Because BET doesn't exist. There is no song called Bust it Baby on the radio, right? Actually let me hit closer to home for my educated people. Its not all thugs and drug dealers who travel to Brazil and Thailand. It is not all thugs and drug dealers who keep the strip clubs in business. It is not all thugs and drug dealers who hit the club every weekend chasing every shapely body they see, ignoring every other thing about her until they can hit it and never call back. And it is not just the men, it is not all uneducated sisters and hood rats that are chasing every fancy car they can find. It is not all uneducated sisters and hood rats that judge a good man strictly by his income and objects. It is not all uneducated sisters that are filling up stripper classes like having a degree all of a sudden makes pole dancing less exploitive. Are we really arguing that had R/ Kelly urinated on a grown woman it would have been morally acceptable? No, as each day goes on we support all of the same ole bullshit that reduces individuals and their interactions to a collections of parts that has no bearing on who they are and what they think. Men are their wallets, cars, homes, and dick size, women are ass and breasts, face and what they will let you do and how easily. We promote this thinking in everything we value in our elite social life then when it bites us in the ass being pushed to an extreme we need to demonize an R. Kelly, or a Michael Vick, or a Pacman Jones because it allows you to justify your bullshit for another moment or two.

The underlying problem is that objectification and hyper sexual relationships have gotten out of control. Whether a person is used, demeaned and discarded at 15 or 50 there is still a major harm to the victim, and the abuser is not relieved of "moral" responsibility. You want to prosecute every person who sleeps with a person under 18? I'm with you. You want to boycott all music that sends a negative image or objectifies? Let's do it. Don't forget the drug deal music, and the 8 million shake your ass harder songs. You want to set a better role model for your friends and children? Let's do it, but stop cheating on your spouses, stop hiding money from child support, some the boys or girls weekends to Vegas and Miami where you fuck whatever, stop going out ass naked in the street. If you want to feel better about yourself by blasting R. Kelly as a deviant strain that is the root of emblematic of the exploitation issues destroying gender relations in the black community? Leave me out of it and come back when you get serious.