Singer R. Kelly is currently in jail, accused of sexually abusing three teenagers and attempting to force his hairdresser into performing oral sex. His lawyer, Steve Greenberg, has made use of the “rock star rape defense”: “He did not force anyone to have sex. He’s a rock star. He doesn’t have to.” This argument is sometimes used when a celebrity is accused of rape or sexual assault and does raise matters of philosophical concern.
One obvious way to address Greenberg’s defense is to note that his client is accused of sexually abusing two teenagers. If these accusations are true and teenagers are not capable of providing consent to sexual acts with adults, then R. Kelly’s being a rock star is not a defense nor is the assent of the teenagers. In this case, since they cannot give consent, there can be no consensual sex—which is the nature of statutory rape. There is also the broader moral concern about consent in general, as opposed to the legal matter of the legal age of consent. However, the focus of this essay will be on Greenberg’s argument.
Presented more formally, his argument is as follows:
Premise 1: If someone is a rock star, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: R. Kelly is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, R. Kelly did not force anyone to have sex.
On the face of it, the argument might seem to have solid logic. This is because it looks like modus ponens, a standard valid deductive argument also known as affirming the antecedent. However, it merely resembles this argument. To be an actual modus ponens, the argument would need to look like this:
Premise 1: If someone is a rock star, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: R. Kelly is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, R. Kelly did not have to force anyone to have sex.
The problem is that Greenberg is arguing that because rock stars do not need to force anyone to have sex it follows that Rockstar R. Kelly did not force anyone to have sex and this does not follow. After all, someone could do something they do not have to do. Greenberg could, of course, have in mind an extended argument:
Argument 1
Premise 1: If someone is a rock star, they do not have to force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2: R. Kelly is a rock star.
Conclusion: Therefore, R. Kelly does not have to force anyone to have sex.
Argument 2
Premise 1: If someone does not have to force anyone to have sex, then they will not force anyone to have sex.
Premise 2 (conclusion of Argument 1): R. Kelly does not have to force anyone to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore, R. Kelly did not force anyone to have sex.
Since both arguments are example of modus ponens, they are both valid deductive arguments and the logic is unassailable. However, there is the question of whether the premises are true. On the face of it, R. Kelly would qualify as a rock star—a celebrity. As such, I will assume that he is a rock star and will not question that premise. What remains is determining whether rock stars do not have to force anyone to have sex and whether not having to force anyone to have sex entails that one would not force anyone to have sex.
The assertion that rock stars do not have to force anyone to have sex seems to assume that anyone would willingly have sex with a rock star because of their fame or fortune. As such, they would not need to force anyone to have sex because they would do so willingly.
While it is true that a rock star can probably find someone willing to have sex with them because of their fame and fortune, it is not true that anyone (in the sense of everyone) would be willing to have sex with them. After all, not everyone is moved to sexual willingness by fame and fortune—even people who are fans of the celebrity might not want to have sex with them. The idea that a celebrity can have sex with anyone they want is mere vanity on their part and an insulting and inaccurate view of people on the part of their defenders. As such, while a rock star can find at least one person to have sex with them willingly and thus do not need to use force to have sex, it does not follow that everyone they had sex with did so willingly.
The matter can also be looked at with an analogy to shoplifting and celebrities. A celebrity accused of shoplifting could argue that they did not steal because they are celebrities and hence do not need to shoplift. However, celebrities obviously do shoplift—the fact they do not need to shoplift to get something does not entail that they did not shoplift specific items. Likewise, even if a celebrity could get consensual sex from somebody, it does not follow that they did not engage in assault or rape in a specific case.
In light of the above, the rock star defense has no merit. This does not, of course, entail that R. Kelly (or any celebrity) is guilty because they use the defense—that is a matter for the court to decide. However, the jury should dismiss the rock star defense as absurd.
Laborious, but of course correct.
I have difficulty understanding what benefit his lawyer expects to gain from this. Of course, I’m sure how lawyer has a better sense of the jury pool he’s aiming for than I do; still, I feel it’s unlikely that even motivated reasoning, many people would give weight to this defence.
My 14 year old son said that R. Kelly was a rap singer “from the 70’s.”
Enough said.
Clearly, he is just not big enough of a star for this defense to work.
Of course, this is not a “defense” in the legal sense, it’s (like most cases like this) a court of public opinion. In a legal sense, In Illinois, the age of consent is 17. If these girls were under that age, as you say, the attorney’s words are irrelevant, as is the consent of the girls. You said as much yourself.
I think the issue here is not one of logic or legal defense, but rather one of parsing words and subtly changing their meaning in the public eye.
“Rape”, by one common definition, is “forced sex”. By another (“statutory rape”), it is sex, whether consensual or not, with a minor.
Kelly’s lawyer is ignoring the actual charges, and offering a defense against charges that were never filed. I think that’s called a “straw man”, isn’t it?
It’s not unlike responding to the claim that illegal immigration is a problem in this country by saying that “migrants” are wonderful citizens. The defense has nothing to do with the charge.
Hip Hop and Rap have mostly been given a pass by feminists and the #metoo crowd. I wonder if this is changing.
It is; some feminists have been very critical of certain elements of Rap/Hip Hop since the beginning-but many did give them a pass.