Would The Beatles be Sex Offenders Today?


I was just whistling the Beatles’ “I dyantfrkrs
Saw Her Standing There
,” which famously begins, “Well she was just 17, you know what I mean?” I believe I do know. Which made me think:

John Lennon wrote the “You know what I mean?” line. He and the Beatles sang this song on Ed Sullivan in 1964, when John was 24. If he’d actually, um, followed through with anyone 17 — you know what I mean? — by today’s laws he would be a rapist in 11 American states where the age of consent is 18. These include California, Virginia, Oregon and Wisconsin. (Here’s the age of consent, state by state.) The penalties for this range from paying a fine, to serving time, to registering as a sex offender.

Somehow, I think most humans are glad that this kind of craziness did not happen then.

Too bad it’s happening today. – L.



There are guys in jail for doing what they sung about in 1964.

There are guys in prison today for doing what these guys sung about in 1964.



, , , , , , , , , , , ,

52 Responses to Would The Beatles be Sex Offenders Today?

  1. BL February 26, 2016 at 10:57 am #

    Paul and Ringo are still living. Put ’em on the registry! You can’t be too careful, you know!

  2. David (Dhewco) February 26, 2016 at 11:09 am #

    Well, what about Elvis and Priscilla? He’d probably do time today…even with fame.

  3. dmg February 26, 2016 at 11:21 am #

    We should probably include Elvis (posthumously) on some of these registries too. =)


  4. Tiny Tim February 26, 2016 at 11:47 am #

    At some point we started to equate (in culture and punishment) statutory rape with rape. I’m not against statutory rape laws. I’m fine with having a discussion about what appropriate legal ages of consent are, including age difference provisions. I’m certainly fine with people with custodial authority (Teachers, etc.) being held to a higher standard. That is to say, I agree with the concept of statutory rape, the concept that we acknowledge some people are too young to consent to sex, and that the involved adult is committing a crime by violating this. But a 25 year old having sex with a consenting (in actuality, if not legally) 16 year old is not rape. It is, if the law says it is, statutory rape. These are different things.

  5. lollipoplover February 26, 2016 at 12:10 pm #

    Don’t forget Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones. He slept with a 14 year-old Mandy Smith when he was 48 years-old (he later married her).

    Jerry Lee Lewis? He married his 13 year-old first cousin.

  6. BL February 26, 2016 at 12:12 pm #

    And Doug Stieger and (His) Sharona.

  7. Linda February 26, 2016 at 12:18 pm #

    Joan Jett and her 17 year old in “I Love Rock and Roll”.

  8. John February 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm #

    In California there was a case a couple of years ago where a 58-year-old man (or close to it) married a 16-year-old girl which is perfectly legal in California with parental consent. Now, let me just say that any 16-year-old girl, in my opinion, who wants to marry a man that age has rocks in her head including her parents who consented to it. Any 58-year-old man wanting to marry a 16-year-old girl also has rocks in his head! I say this because what does a 16-year-old girl and a 58-year-old man have in common? Of course, this is just MY opinion and many here may differ. But I would say the exact same thing if she were 18 or 19.

    But with that said, it is perfectly legal in the state of California. So when I read the article on this, they had posted a picture of the girl in a bikini and let me tell you something, she was more well-endowed than most 25-year-old women! I mean, she was a knock-out and I could easily see why this man was physically attracted to her. Goodness, she was certainly eye candy to me!

    But what I’m getting at here is you wouldn’t believe the moronic comments below that article. They accused the man of being a pedophile and a child predator which is totally ridiculous. First of all pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children and this girl was well past the prepubescent stage. Unfortunately the media misuses that term deeming anybody who had sex with a person under 18 a pedophile. If that were the case, then we’d all be pedophiles! But that’s the modern day witch hunt mentality of our American culture.

    Realistically, after seeing a picture of this girl in a bikini, I would question the heterosexuality of any post pubescent male who would look at this girl and not feel anything!

  9. Dee February 26, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

    Although the teacher in the song is trying to resist, what about the Police’s “Don’t Stand So Close to Me?!” So much just couldn’t/wouldn’t be done now.

  10. Shelly Stow February 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

    And Maurice Chevalier would be a dirty old man on the registry for his “Thank Heaven for Little Girls,” and whoever wrote and sang, “Just Standing on the Corner, Watching All the Girls Go By,” would, at the very least, by censored by today’s feminists for promoting “rape culture.”

  11. James Pollock February 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm #

    “Somehow, I think most humans are glad that this kind of craziness did not happen then.”

    Statutory rape laws are not a recent development.

    However, John wrote the song when he was at home in England, where the laws were (and still are) different.

    “I love Rock n’ Roll” also features a seventeen-year-old, and when Joan Jett famously covered the song, flipped the genders.

  12. Andrea D. February 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm #

    Imagine Jerry lee Lewis.

  13. Michelle February 26, 2016 at 1:17 pm #

    Loretta Lynn was only 14 when she married her husband.

  14. Catherine Caldwell-Harris February 26, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    This is a complex topic. 25 year olds who have consensual sex with a 17 year old should not go to jail BUT I also don’t want to live in a culture where men feel free to sexually prey upon teenage gils. Many 17 year olds are psychologically vulnerable to coercion by older males.

    Thus – doesn’t deserve jail time, but isn’t morally right imo in most situations (of course I can imagine exceptions), and at the very least should not be said to be ‘perfectly ok’ either.

    When I was growing up in the 1970s, males of all ages prowled the streets (or even the public libraries) looking for young girls they thought might be vulnerable to being sexually used. A girl who was the victim had only herself to blame for not being a better gate-keeper of male sexuality (unless physical force was used). One bright spot in this was age-of-consent laws. I recall being 16 in California and some men who worked at a car repair shop next-door to where I had an after school job were talking about me, saying, stay away, she’s jail bait. I didn’t really know exactly what it meant except it was a law that they took seriously that was keeping me safe from them grabbing me and pressuring me to have sex. I felt grateful for that law.

    What do you readers think?

  15. Suze February 26, 2016 at 1:23 pm #

    I’m going to do the late John Lennon a ‘solid’ here. I’d like to know in 1964 British legal terms, just what the legal age of consent was as he or any other of the Fab Four may very well NOT be sex offenders even by those standards. One can only hope. I love that song, and I’d always deciphered that part as teenagers talking about other teenagers but that’s just me.

  16. Eyes Rolling February 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm #

    We can suggest an updated lyric-

    1964 – “And the way she looked was way beyond compare”
    2014 – “25 to life on the list if you dare”

  17. Suze February 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm #

    Also, may I suggest you google “The Baby Groupies” or “The GTO’s” …. these were a very famous bunch of underage female groupies who all the big rock stars of the 70’s wanted to meet and party with. All this has came back into the limelight recently with several rock stars alleged ties to these girls. Lots of interesting reading there. And all this was well known and done nothing about; everyone just looked the other way and it was sad. I know the one groupie; the very infamous Lori Maddox wrote a book about her groupie days. I haven’t read it but I often wonder if she had regrets and what she thinks of that type of behaviour now; legal or otherwise.

  18. James Pollock February 26, 2016 at 1:55 pm #

    Conversely, there’s ABBA and “Does Your Mother Know?”

  19. Jason February 26, 2016 at 2:12 pm #

    I believe the age of consent in the UK is 16, and in Germany, 14. Adult men, meaning “older” adults, who have sex with girls that age are not held in high esteem, but it is presumed that teens of that age are old enough to decide if they want to have sex or not.

    The laws in this country which attempt to protect vulnerable young girls from predatory adult men can’t take the place of social structures and family environments that can reduce the number of vulnerable young girls in the first place.

    I suspect that most of the prosecutions for this occur in the more “visible” layers of society, but there is far more unseen and unpunished predation in the subcultures where nobody talks to the cops.

  20. Coasterfreak February 26, 2016 at 2:13 pm #

    “Seventeen” by Winger. Kip Winger was somewhere around 30 years old when he sang the song about an aggressive 17-year old girl. Back then we didn’t even question it (especially since 17 is legal in many states), but today it would probably be scandalous.

    Another band I used to listen to in the early 90’s, Love/Hate, had an especially creepy song about a 13 year old girl. I always wondered what possessed them to record that song. Presumably it was based on real life experiences, but I still wonder why they’d write and record a song about it.

  21. Janek Cracovian February 26, 2016 at 2:15 pm #

    You will read in Scriptures that “to the pure all things are pure,” but in a society of the insane everything is suspect.

  22. James Pollock February 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm #

    Is this a case of dirty mind?

    In the song, all he does is hold her hand.

  23. SanityAnyone? February 26, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

    I’m all for kids waiting, but a good percentage of my Aunts and Uncles a generation before got married at 16 or 17 and started families. I think a few more generations back, 14 or 15 was common. They were raised to become adults and nearly self-sufficient by that age. My own parents, at 23 and 25, were probably considered late bloomers.

    We should definitely protect children from sex before they are mature enough to handle the consequences and, obviously, protect them from those who manipulate or attack them. I don’t think our laws are sophisticated enough to handle this balance.

    At the same time, society should, in my mind, work on raising kids with more adult readiness. A teen is still a teen, biologically and in brain-development, but they can be capable and thoughtful people. I am not a fan of the “child-man” phenomenon, i.e. a man with childish interests and values persisting long into adulthood who doesn’t accept adult responsibilities like caring for their babies.When did we stop viewing capability, honor, and reliability as sexy? I still do.

  24. Beth February 26, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

    At least one Gary Puckett and the Union Gap song comes to mind….didn’t he even get in trouble for something related to underage girls?

    I’m far too tired on this Friday afternoon to even Google it.

  25. Opal February 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm #

    As someone who was a teen in the late 90s/early 00s, I always use the example of, “Stacy’s Mom,” by Fountains of Wayne. My Dad is a boomer, and actually really likes them. It’s a catchy tune. If you flip the genders, however, I have always suspected people would have a hard time believing that a girl could actually think, “My friend’s dad is hot, and I would not be a victim if something were to happen.” Not that anything should happen, of course, because that would be wrong. But there seems to be this thing where men get a free pass for thinking their teacher or a parent or someone female in a position of authority is attractive. South Park had a great episode on it with Ike’s teacher being in a relationship with him and alk the men going, “Nice. (I do not adovocate for kinder-teacher relations, though the episode had a point)” No clue why that is. Both men and women can be victims, age of consent or not. It’s always the context that matters. I know plenty of high schoolers who are in safe, consensual relationships, and plenty of mid-30s folks who have yet to figure out how to advocate for themselves.

  26. m February 26, 2016 at 3:26 pm #

    The fact that the age of consent can vary so much by state proves it’s arbitrary nature. Just a few years ago, some states had “age of consent” as low as 14. In many states, girls under the age of consent can still get married with parental consent.

    Also, it’s not enforced with any regularity. If it was, every teen pregnancy or abortion of an underage girl would be reported as a crime to the police. Instead, we have free clinics where underaged teens can get free birth control, STD testing, and abortions without parental consent.

    Does anyone else find that odd?

  27. James Pollock February 26, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

    “every teen pregnancy or abortion of an underage girl would be reported as a crime to the police”

    Not every teen pregnancy or abortion of an underage girl involves a statutory rape. Sometimes, the father is ALSO under the age of consent. Sometimes, even, the father is the younger.

  28. That_Susan February 26, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

    “One bright spot in this was age-of-consent laws. I recall being 16 in California and some men who worked at a car repair shop next-door to where I had an after school job were talking about me, saying, stay away, she’s jail bait. I didn’t really know exactly what it meant except it was a law that they took seriously that was keeping me safe from them grabbing me and pressuring me to have sex. I felt grateful for that law.

    What do you readers think?”

    Age-of-consent laws aside, it’s not legal to go up to anyone of any age and grab them and pressure them to have sex. Anyone of any age needs to yell, “Take your hands off me!” if this happens.

    But maybe those laws provide some protection for teenaged girls, who probably do get approached more frequently than older women. My own teenager’s experience has been that saying “I’m fourteen” (now it would be fifteen) to a man who approached her resulted in him leaving her totally alone.

    However, I think that even without the laws, others out on the street will quickly intervene if they see an adult harassing a young person.

  29. Angela February 26, 2016 at 4:42 pm #

    Statutory rape is sexual contact with a child (as defined by law) without consideration of the age of the perpetrator, at least in Wisconsin. If 2 minors have sex with each other, according to the law, each is guilty of victimizing the other. Usually the male, if the ages are very close, or the older child will be charged, although I have heard a few cases where the possibility of charging both was considered – I have never followed up on those stories.

  30. Vaughan Evans February 26, 2016 at 5:24 pm #

    I live in Canada.
    The age of consent is 16.
    In Canada, the Criminal Code is uniform across the country(The Criminal Code, a federal statute was first
    example beginning 1969 “buggery” was repealed -for consenting adults in private

  31. Eldo February 26, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

    Tiffany had a popular cover of this song in 1987. The title changed to “I Saw Him Standing There”, but the rest of the lyrics are the same.

  32. David (Dhewco) February 26, 2016 at 8:18 pm #

    Well, if you go back far enough, the legal age is more based on body development. If the child is of child bearing age, she could be married off (they got married earlier, but consummation wasn’t allowed until she could get pregnant). However, those girls were different. They were raised to expect to be married by that age. That was a time when middle age was 25-30, after all. It’s all arbitrary.

    I can’t imagine having any kind of the intimacy that we’re talking about here. Not only is it morally wrong, but I can’t imagine it’s anything but confusing for the young person involved. Elvis was in the army when he met 14yo Priscilla. He was ‘impressed with her maturity’. Wow, even sixty years ago, I’m not sure what that meant.

  33. Bob Davis February 26, 2016 at 9:33 pm #

    We can go back to the Big Band Era, when Artie Shaw and his orchestra recorded “When the Quail Come Back to San Quentin.” One of California’s better known penal institutions is San Quentin, which is in Marin County. It led to the term “Quentin Quail” for underaged girls. The title is probably a play on the more mainstream “When the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano”.

    I remember a colleague back in the 70s who had a teenage daughter and a backyard swimming pool. Daughter would invite her friends over to swim and work on their tans. Since they were in a secluded yard some of them would bring their “itsy bitsy teeny weeinie Bikinis” that they might have misgivings about wearing at the beach. My colleague told me, “Some of these girls are, shall we say, rather mature for their age, and I just about have to take a cold shower when they come over to visit.”

    And someone already mentioned Jerry Lee Lewis–I was working at the local music store in 1958, when he married his 13 year old cousin (who was the daughter of his bass player). It took a while for the furore to die down, and as I recall, some radio stations took his records off their playlists.

  34. sexhysteria February 27, 2016 at 5:22 am #

    Great illustration of how free speech (and freedom of action) have been trampled on by political correctness! Other popular songs, poetry, literature and films abound with formerly uninhibited speech expressing now-prohibited human emotions.

  35. andy February 27, 2016 at 8:01 am #

    @David (Dhewco) Yes, girls were different when they were married off at 14 to 16 years old boys . However, they also were not expected to live alone in own new house, the girls moved to live with husbands parents. They were not head of families nor independent. Youth being expected to find own housing and living entirely independently coincides with youth marrying later.

    It was also the time where marrying them off soon was basically only reliable way to prevent extramarital pregnancies which were big deal back then.

  36. Andr L. February 27, 2016 at 8:21 am #

    @Catherine Caldwell-Harris: I agree with the general line of your arguments, but I think gender equality should be fully applied there. Reasonable age-difference laws should apply, exactly in the same way, for adult women who have sex with too young male teens.

    I personally think 15 years old is a reasonable age of consent threshold, for male and females, with close age exemptions for teens a bit younger than that that get involved with each other (but no exception for adults >18 of any gender having sex with 14 y.o. of any gender).

    I was also reading how there also used to be a sickening acceptance among parts (operative word: parts) of the gay and lesbian communities of sex between teens and much older adults of the same gender, to the point where removing all age of consent laws for “biologically post-pubescence persons” was a formal platform thrown in human rights campaigns of the early 1970s.

  37. Andr L. February 27, 2016 at 8:28 am #

    Girls were not uncommonly married out (in disgracefully arranged marriages several times) at 16 or 15, but often the age of the male partner was a couple years older. It was just one of the despicable dynamics that keep women as inferior beings who couldn’t exist outside the domain of a male authority (father, who then shipped her off to a husband he (the father) approved). There is nothing good to feel about that era.

    Moreover, life expectancy was much lower back then. Surviving to age 60 was like surviving to 85 today. Those who survived the onslaught of child diseases (at a time when infant mortality was above 20% for ages 0-6) to reach puberty had just some 28-32 extra years, on average, of life ahead of them.

    Just because something used to be done in the past doesn’t mean it was necessarily right then, or even if it was right then, shouldn’t follow it is the right thing now. It might or might not be. Or does anybody think working 12h day, 7 days/week on backbreaking physically demanding and very dangerous jobs from age 13 after acquiring rudimentary literacy is a good model for society?

  38. andy February 27, 2016 at 8:50 am #

    @Opal I have noted double standards too. A boy being into teacher is almost a meme and people in causal discussion treat him almost as a lucky one if they get together. Meanwhile, a girl of same age being into man in his twenties is considered impossible and it is assumed she was vulnerable and weak. Which is illogical, because girls mature faster at that age and it is more common for men to be older in relationship. 17 years old being attracted into 24 years old without there being manipulation or coercion seem to be perfectly within what happens. 17 years old girls often find boys of their own age to be too much immature.

    And while in the past time older man could take advantage of younger girl by promising her marriage and life together and then leaving her with damaged reputation and problems for life, the society today is different. The risks are much lower for the girl today and she is not looking to get married as desperately they used to in the past.

    Then again, while genuine feelings and relationships between various ages are possible, it is fully reasonable to expect the adult one to keep control over himself or herself. An adult should be able to not have sex with 14 yo he or she finds attractive or likes to talk with. An adult should be able to either move on or wait four years.

    @Catherine Caldwell-Harris Men harassing women and girls for sex is different matter entirely. What you describe is a consequence of men of your town having much higher social status back them and huge double standards for men and women in that town. I do not think it has all that much to do with age of consent.

  39. Matthew February 27, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    Abbott and Costello, imagine you’re 40 and she’s 10.


  40. Music guy February 27, 2016 at 1:17 pm #

    Here’s a list of just a few songs about 17 year olds:

    “And she won’t give up ’cause she’s seventeen
    She’s a frozen fire, she’s my one desire” – “Let’s Go” The Cars

    “She was only seventeen, seventeen, but she was sexy!” – “17” Rick James

    “Well she’s sexy and seventeen
    My little rock-roll queen acts a little bit obscene
    Gotta let off a little steam
    Dig that sound shake it around you’re mine, mine, mine” – “(She’s) Sexy + 17” Stray Cats

    The Winger song someone mentioned above (“Seventeen” – “She’s only seventeen.
    Daddy says she’s too young, but she’s old enough for me”)

    In “Paradise By The Dashboard Lights”, Meatloaf talks about both of them being barely 17 and barely dressed.

    So there’s a lot of songs about 17 year olds. 🙂 In reality, probably because it’s easier to work the 3 syllables into a verse than 2 (18, 19).

  41. David (Dhewco) February 27, 2016 at 2:48 pm #

    Andy, I wasn’t referring to 14 and 16 year olds. I was referring to cases like Margaret Beaufort…the mother of Henry VII. She was married off by the King at 12, and pregnant at 13 seven months by the time her husband died. The man was twice her age at 24. I have no idea where she lived or if she lived with Edmund Tudor’s parents. Stuff like that happened a lot in families with money. I’m sure I can find other examples with more of an age disparity.

    So, yeah, the age of consent was once based around being able to get pregnant. Of course, Lady Beaufort’s pregnancy was so dangerous for her it pretty much sterilized her. Thank god for better laws today. I am also glad the legal system protects girls against such things today. I use cases of nobles and rich people because the poor and middle class didn’t document as well.

  42. Papilio February 27, 2016 at 3:48 pm #

    The trouble with stating any age of consent or maximum amount of years that partners can differ in age will always be that all people mature at their own pace. It will always be an arbitrary line in the sand just because the law needs something concrete. What matters most is how a society then treats those lines in the sand. Do you pretend they’re set in stone, meaning anyone having sex with anyone (just) under that age must be morally wrong and a criminal? Or do you acknowledge that every teen, every teen couple is different and do you allow yourselves to assess the maturity and equality of the relationship before you send the older partner off to jail?

    Personally I’d have a bigger problem with a 24-year-old who actively seeks out teen girls to hook up with and then move on to the next one-night sweetheart than with a 24-year-old who fell in love with a girl who happened to be 17.

    Just my 5 eurocents (we’ve done away with the 1 and 2 cent pieces 🙂 ).

  43. andy February 27, 2016 at 4:29 pm #

    @David (Dhewco) I do not know much about Beaufort, but I suspect that had more to do with politics, money and power then anything whatsoever people at that time considered decent or adult. I used 14 as example, because that is age when majority of population was starting to marry in 19 century in agrarian places – I did not know that by past you mean medieval and these moneyed families represented minority of population anyway. It would be like saying that Trumps or Clinton lifestyle has anything whatsoever to do with how average American live.

    Judging from what I read about her on wiki now, a lot of things went down the year she was married second time had nothing to do with decency or morals in that period.

  44. Andr L. February 27, 2016 at 6:46 pm #

    @Papilio: ever hard-set threshold in law will have some degree of arbitrary setup around those cases that fall slightly in or out, and are otherwise very similar. But that is a price society pays to, at least, have something set in law instead of being subject to the capriciousness of whomever is enforcing a vague law.

    A good example: road speed limits. When properly set (I’m not talking of tricky speed traps, but engineering-sanctioned limits), speed limits indicate a safety threshold drivers shouldn’t go over. On a 55mph curvy sector of an interstate, there could always be an argument that a driver going 56mph is not really posing any major danger compared to the guy going 54. And the car zipping at 58 is probably still within safety limits. So why not just raise the limit fo 60? Well, then one could argue the safety difference between driving at 61 or 60 is negligible, and so on.

    Consent ages (absolute or relative to partner’s age) will always be arbitrary in a sense. Nonetheless, the only other option is to implement a costly, unpredictable and invasive system to set up variable thresholds such as “emotional development” or “puberty stage”. Imagine this – a teen and an adult had sex, know come the psychologist, the GP doctor and whomever else to ascertain whether the younger party was mature enough, emotionally and biologically, to give consent, and whether the older part properly assessed that. It would be a totally unworkable system that would either punish people on a very erratic manner or allow anyone that looks barely a teen to consent to any form of sexual activity.


    On completely unrelated notes, New Mexico decriminalized sexting between teens 14-18 completely, as long as pictures are sent voluntarily. The law was just signed by the governor. Prosecutors (who had been charging some teen couples with misdemeanors as part of plea deals in large numbers) don’t like the new law: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/new-mexico-legalizes-teen-sexting

  45. David (Dhewco) February 27, 2016 at 9:11 pm #

    I’ve read of other stories besides the English royals, but I can’t remember where and I don’t feel like researching. Marriages are politics on a small scale whether or not there’s governments and royal family involved.

    Anyway, for some reason, the advent of technology and industry brought forth different morals. People started living longer and, frankly, childhood began to mean something besides another field laborer or pawn in some family ‘Game of Thrones’.

    I write alternative history and I’m always thinking of the past as Medieval Europe. The 1800s and 1900s are too recent to really be the ‘past’ to me. I’m weird like that.

  46. dancing on thin ice February 28, 2016 at 11:08 am #

    Having worked with musicians I came up with this list 5 years ago.

    Too Young – Nat King Cole
    Sweet Little Sixteen – Chuck Berry
    You’re Sixteen – Burnette, Johnny / Ringo Starr
    Please Mr. Postman – The Marvelettes / The Beatles
    I’ll Get You – The Beatles
    I Saw Her Standing There – The Beatles
    No Reply – The Beatles (stalking)
    Run For Your Life – The Beatles (abusive spouse)
    You Better Run – The Rascals / Pat Benatar
    Younger Girl – The Lovin’ Spoonful
    Layla – Derek & The Dominos (other man’s wife)
    Youngblood – Leon Russell
    Dancing Queen – ABBA
    Hanging On The Telephone – Blondie (stalking)
    One Way Or Another – Blondie
    My Best Friend’s Girl – The Cars
    I Want You To Want Me – Cheap Trick
    I Don’t Like Mondays (based on a 1970’s school shooting) – The Boomtown Rats
    My Sharonna – The Knack
    Did You See Me? – The Bus Boys
    (I Love It When You) Call Me Names – Joan Armatrading (abusive relationships)
    Photograph – Def Leppard
    Because Of Me – Robert Cray
    Wrap It Up – Sam & Dave / The Fabulous Thunderbirds
    Similar Features – Melissa Etheridge
    As tears Go By – written by The Rolling Stones for Marianne Faithful (“I watch the children play”)

    This variety are ones people may be familiar with.

  47. James Pollock February 28, 2016 at 4:50 pm #

    Upon further reflection, the Beatles wouldn’t be sex criminals for “I Saw Her Standing There”, but they would be for “Why Don’t We Do It In the Road”.

  48. JP Merzetti February 29, 2016 at 12:26 am #

    aw yeah –
    we’d probably throw the Beatles in prison if they showed up today.
    (which probably means we’ve gone on and beyond deserving such a treat as them)

    ……but all the “legal” X-rated dogs breakfast that is served up to kids on a regular basis, is quite all right.

    We are the Walrus.

    Goo goo, go joob.

    (Man, you’ve been a naughty boy, you let your face grow long)
    ain’t that the truth.

  49. James Pollock February 29, 2016 at 12:41 am #

    “we’d probably throw the Beatles in prison if they showed up today.”

    Well, we did try to deport John Lennon back in the 70’s, for such unamerican values as giving peace a chance and imagining no religion, too.

  50. Papilio February 29, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

    @Andre L: Sorry about the late reply. The point I was trying to make was that yes, you do need some hard lines in the law, but you should be a bit more pragmatic about prosecuting people who break that law.
    In theory you can prosecute every single person who had sex with a teen under age [whatever your law says], but THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU HAVE TO. All those young couples that had consentual sex, don’t regret it, are happy about it etc etc, why the heck would you seek to throw the older one (or both of them!) in jail and/or put them on the SOR?
    Use that law and your time and effort and money and prisoncells to lock up the 35-year-old creep, not the 18-year-old boyfriend.

    There was a piece in the paper the other day about a questionnaire done among teens aged 12-15 about sexting. The actual law was explained in a separate part of the article, followed by a paragraph on what happens *in practice*. In practice, underaged couples who send each other nude pics without further problems don’t get prosecuted.

    These laws are meant to stop abuse, not to criminalize normal experimenting among teens. So on top of some hard age limits, you need a culture of common sense for them to work properly, because that is ultimately what makes the difference, not the actual age limit. That’s what I was trying to say.

    Re engineering and road speed limits in the US: you mean there’s a connection?

  51. FunkyPhD March 1, 2016 at 1:06 pm #

    For the record, John was 23 when he sang that song on the Ed Sullivan Show (his birthday was October 9, 1940; the show was broadcast on February 9, 1964).

  52. Daniel March 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm #

    Uh, they were just dancing. That’s not illegal in any state, with the possible exception of Kansas.