For decades, the Red Hot Chili Peppers have occupied a peculiar position in popular culture, their music providing the soundtrack to everything from teenage rebellion to mainstream radio. Kiedis, meanwhile, has become one of alternative rock’s most recognisable frontmen, celebrated for his charisma, longevity and remarkable survival story. Yet behind that familiar image lies a series of incidents that raise uncomfortable questions about the behaviour the music industry has historically been willing to overlook. Some of the most troubling details are not buried in forgotten court documents or whispered accusations among industry insiders. They were openly acknowledged by Kiedis himself.

...

In 1986, Kiedis began a relationship with Ione Skye, the daughter of Donovan, who was just 16 when they started dating, meaning she was a minor in the state of California. At the time, Kiedis was around 24, and the two stayed together for several years. Furthermore, Kiedis even included a nude picture of the couple in his autobiography.

Kiedis also documented another troubling encounter in Scar Tissue, one that would inspire the Red Hot Chili Peppers song ‘Catholic School Girls Rule’. According to his autobiography, he met a young fan backstage at a concert in Louisiana and began a sexual relationship with her. He subsequently discovered that she was just 14 years old.

“The next day we drove to Baton Rouge, and of course, she came with us,” Kiedis wrote. “After we got offstage, she came up to me and said, ‘I have something to tell you. My father’s the chief of police and the entire state of Louisiana is looking for me because I’ve gone missing. Oh, and besides that, I’m only 14’.”

Kiedis continued: “I wasn’t incredibly scared, because, in my somewhat deluded mind, I knew that if she told the chief of police she was in love with me, he wasn’t going to have me taken out to a field and shot, but I did want to get her the hell back home right away. So we had sex one more time.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this admission is the circumstances in which it became public knowledge. Kiedis was not confronted with an accusation during a police investigation, nor was he forced to disclose the relationship under questioning. He voluntarily included the account in Scar Tissue, his best-selling autobiography, published in 2004. By then, the Red Hot Chili Peppers were one of the world’s biggest bands, and their singer was reflecting on his past for an enormous audience. That he chose to recount having sex with a 14-year-old after learning her age, apparently without anticipating the seriousness with which such an admission might be received, says something troubling about the culture in which these stories were once treated as acceptable rock ‘n’ roll anecdotes.

....

In a separate incident in April 1989, Kiedis was accused of sexual battery and indecent exposure following a Red Hot Chili Peppers performance at George Mason University in Virginia. According to contemporary reports, a female student alleged that the singer had exposed himself and made unwanted sexual contact with her backstage. Kiedis denied the allegation.

In April 1990, a Virginia jury found Kiedis guilty of sexual battery and indecent exposure, recommending fines of $1,000 for each misdemeanour. Unlike the incident described in his autobiography, this case resulted in criminal proceedings and a conviction. It was not simply another controversial story from the band’s notoriously chaotic early years, but an incident that had been examined in court and resulted in a guilty verdict.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 week ago (23 children)

Because a) they come from him, himself, there’s no news here. b) what we just said about everyone else. And c) its a long article for no news and just one guy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    they come from him, himself, there’s no news here.

    Not everyone knows this about Kiedis. Red Hot Chili Peppers is still played on the radio often.

    Why do you care if we talk about how rapists are given a pass in our society?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    Playing devils advocate; It could be seen as an attempt to character assasinate a specific person, by conspicuously leaving out the broader context that this behavior was commonplace at the time. Someone who's goal is to bring this behavior to light would surely talk about the phenomenon as a whole, and not just one dude in the crowd, right? Although, personally I think in our engagement based attention economy, shocking people with a headline like this and then turning around and talking about the whole thing is a little scummy, but ultimately an effective strategy. Being up front about the issue would get less interest, and fewer eyes on the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Needed to note that just because it was commonplace at the time (it still is commonplace by the way), doesn’t make Kiedis raping a 14 year old any more acceptable. It was deplorable behavior then and it’s deplorable now. Just because more people openly talk about the trauma of rape now doesn’t mean there wasn’t countless untold traumas playing out in those victim’s lives then.

    The devil doesn’t need an advocate on child rape.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    I think you're misunderstanding what I said here, and assuming that I'm being adversarial. Playing devils advocate is a way to help you understand why someone might have issue with your position.

    It's not defending a rapist, it's questioning why you would attack this specific rapist, and ignore all the other rapists doing the exact same thing. I makes it look like you don't care about the rape, but you hate this one guy for unrelated reasons.

    I understand that the article talks about the wider phenomenon, but you can see how someone just skimming the title could misconstrue it this way, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    It's not defending a rapist, it's questioning why you would attack this specific rapist, and ignore all the other rapists doing the exact same thing.

    What the fuck strawman is this? No one is ignoring other rapists doing the exact same thing. The point is this should have never been ignored the way it was over and over again.

    My statement stands regardless of your bad attempt to teach me about devil’s advocate arguments - child rapists don’t need to be defended by looking at all sides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (9 children)

    This statement is not at all correct, but I don't think I am going to be able to get across the idea that I was trying to communicate.

    I'm sorry that I was unable to convey my point effectively. I don't have time to continue arguing over this, and I don't think either of us are enjoying it. I hope you have a good rest of your day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    Again, the devil doesn’t need advocates on the topic of child rape.

    Thank you for stepping away before you embarrassed yourself further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    ???

    This response is so petty and mean. I did nothing to you. I tried to help you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    Tried to help me? By downplaying the severity of what Kiedis has done and accuse me of not caring about other rapists?

    Some fucking help you were offering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    That's not what I did at all. You are completely off base.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    Asking why we care about Kiedis when others were doing the same thing is the very definition of downplaying his crimes.

    And you did directly accuse me of appearing to not care about the rape in question nor other rapists:

    It's not defending a rapist, it's questioning why you would attack this specific rapist, and ignore all the other rapists doing the exact same thing. I makes it look like you don't care about the rape, but you hate this one guy for unrelated reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I'm sorry, I can't believe that a real person exists that is this verbose, but also has this poor reading comprehension. You are a troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Have you ever been in a stressful online discussion?

    Why would you see someone in that situation and decide it's the time to play a game of devils advocate?

    Surely it's obvious that would only stress them further?

    Why pat yourself on the back for overlooking the human in the equation. Truth is that a post in this type of space always feels like the many (commenters) against the one (the person brave enough to post).

    So there's plenty of devils to advocate for themselves. Too many.

    Maybe pick the human next time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    The article quite literally talks about the behavior as a whole.

    How is it scummy to get people’s attention on it if you think they would have ignored it otherwise?

    Do you believe this is an issue that should be ignored?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Oh I see, so this is a public service announcement on behalf of yourself and the author to ensure we Expel Anthony Kiedis from civilization as the true child crime Hitler of all time.

    Yeah, no that makes . . . that makes sense.

    I "care" only that it's a hyper-focused attack on one guy. It's weird. Gene Simmons? Anyone? Fucking Gary Glitter? No? Just Anthony Kiedis. Okay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Talking about Kiedis isn’t mutually exclusive with caring about rape in general.

    Why are you defending Kiedis when he has admitted that he raped a 14 year old?

    What’s wrong with talking about how Kiedis is a child rapist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Nothing, but you don't really need a two-page single spaced article to do it. And as there are thousands more people in the exact same time and place to include, it seems weird.

    Here - look at this: Start with Kiedis, ok? THEN, add more names and more examples. THAT's interesting. That's a good article.

    This, as it is, is a hit piece about something he's already openly talked about for, what decades now? You think he's advocating for it? You think he's still out there looking for 14-year olds?

    That's fucked up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago*

    Almost two decades after the publication of Scar Tissue, Kiedis was directly questioned about the incident. During a 2022 interview with The Guardian, journalist Kate Hutchinson raised the passage in which the singer admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old girl. Kiedis declined to discuss the matter, responding: “I don’t know what you’re searching for with that one.” He suggested that revisiting the subject would serve little purpose, and the telephone conversation subsequently ended. For a musician whose autobiography had been celebrated for its unflinching honesty, his reluctance to address one of its most disturbing revelations presented a striking contradiction.

    Try reading the article next time.

    Kiedis didn’t confess. He bragged. There’s a difference.

    Raising awareness is important. There are people out there that truly believe that teenagers are capable of consenting to sex with adults.

    You are working for child rapists when you defend these men.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    There's no requirement to be a new story for an opinion peice or social analysis. It just has to be a relevant/worthwhile topic for society still (which it is). Likewise there's no restriction or statute of limitations on discussing these things.

    So maybe stop trying to manufacture or simulate that there is. The claim that "things written today can only be about new events" or "Wrong doings should only be analysed up upto a point" are arbitrary decisions/assumptions.

    ...and they don't serve to open up consideration or thoughtful progress.

    So why raise such arbitrary or subjective restrictions?

    Is it because the discussion makes you feel a certain way? Or is it because you think your time is important and don't want to have to skip to the next post? Why fuss that these things can be discussed as necessary to process them?

    You might see value in a more over-arching meta/pattern analysis... But that doesn't mean there's not another kind of value, or answers to be found in granular investigations of a specific case/instance.

    Both modes are valid.

  • source
  • parent