I disagree. I can understand that as a so-called celebrity, there have been people willing to ride his pole (as you put it), who wouldn't have looked twice had he been an ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus. The news reports make it clear however that Kelly's behaviour was violent and also that some of his victims were under-age. Society is right to set an age of consent for sexual activity (it's 16 in the UK, I think it varies by state in the US) and I find it concerning that you would appear to excuse what I regard as child abuse as "hypocrisy" and "arbitrary transitional adolescence".
I respect your view and society's attempts, but I have to confess a type of realpolitik attitude toward some social ills, colored both by my upbringing in squalor and poverty, and by five years of teaching in American public high schools. As much as I champion an egalitarian standard for individuals in society, my views on justice belie that I do believe there is an underclass in all societies that is beyond external help, and that they only escape it through internal determination to live better than what surrounds them.
Underage sex is rampant, and despite much of it being blamed on abuse at home, that doesn't actually negate the reality that a great many teens seek sex once the cat is out of the bag, whether it began with abuse or simple lax parenting. The fact that they often seek out sex with older, financially able, partners, is a pattern that goes back as far as commerce goes.
Initial attempts to prosecute Kelly failed both to his own obfuscation but also due to the women's refusal to cooperate with prosecutors.
Kelly married illegally a 15-year-old by providing her a false ID. Whereas I do agree that he began engaging with sex with her at 13 or 14, and that is too young to be accepted socially, I'm not sure what we accomplish when we punish it as crime. The gritty reality is that it is occurring in families rich and poor, far and wide, but away from the glare of public eye for the most part. In this specific case, we made a poster child of a wealthy pop music star, a change from how society has dealt with others like Jerry Lee Lewis, and others.
In my view, we are spinning our wheels, and sending mixed messages. We glorify and glamorize pop music stars, but men and women, who sometimes begin as teens, and market sex appeal and suggestive dance and partial nudity. Millions and millions and million of dollars are made selling their concerts, their images, their digital music, and in secondary markets like news shows, talk shows, and the like.
Then, we turn the tables and say that underage sex is abuse, all the while, encouaging the marketing of adolescent whoring in the music industry.
I say let water seek its own level. Society that rejects that behavior can and should continue to shun it, to not accept or receive those who promote it or participate in it, but stop kidding ourselves that criminal prosecution is changing society or actually protecting the young or the vulnerable, or the just plain stupid or depraved.
