You're absolutely right, Craig. People are jumping all over Michael Jackson for something that appears to be getting more and more unsure with every news story, but no one's batted an eye about R. Kelly's almost assured guilt in this case. It's shameful. I find it amusing that Beyonce, who is supposed to be very religious and a "good girl" doesn't seem to mind hanging out with Kelly. As long as he's a big name in the biz, I guess it's only a boost to her, right Beyonce?

Err..I believe Roman Polanski was given an Oscar and received a standing ovation no less. A self confessed and convicted..err..what word do I put in here? Statutory rapist? That is what they are accusing Rkelly of is it not? Why should he not win awards if he deserves them? I have his new Album.

I have seen the video. Sometimes it looks like him, sometimes it doesn't..go figure! Plus, there was only one girl who looked underage, the rest could have been 20plus, although all you need is one girl. At the same time, if theres a case, let it go to trial and lets hear his defence. Meanwhile, if he makes good music I will embrace it because Roman Polanski I repeat, won an Oscar and received a standing ovation from the Hollywood community. A convicted Statutory rapist, I repeat. Who cannot come into the USA lest he be arrested. And you think R kelly is an issue? Its things like this that make the black peoples "paranoia" seem sometimes justified.

Don't even get me started on Roman Polanski. I don't see what bearing that has here. For all you know I could be, and for the record I am outraged by the stories I heard about him too. Not only a statutory rapist, but he did it by drugging the girl. Still, it has no bearing on R Kelly. He, like Polanski, should not be celebrated.

My decision to buy a product or not buy a product is based only on the quality and price of the product, and not on whether I approve of the behavior or philosophy of the manufacturer(s). When it comes to music and movies, the apparent need for consumers to know about the personal lives of the artists misses the point entirely. God only knows what the people who built my car are up to in their personal lives. I don't care, because I just want the car. I refuse to buy R Kelly music because I hate that crap. It has nothing to do with his morals or lack thereof. If he's deemed worthy of a musical award, then the award is in honor of his contribution to the music industry, not his contribution to the moral fabric of America.

Craig it has complete bearing. They are similar cases. How can you say it has no bearing? Ha! Its the same case, different defendants. Infact from all accounts Polanski's even has more sordid behind the scenes evidence. None of them should be celebrated. My point being, if Polanski CAN be celebrated, there should not be too much outrage about Rkelly. More importantly, I would like to hear Rkelly's defence.

They are both wrong. Neither should be celebrated. Defense my ass. There is a video tape. That is my point. Sandra, I was saying that Polanski has no bearing because I feel the same way about him. I didn't give him a standing ovation at the Oscars, so that action has no bearing on me. It isn't an excuse for me why R Kelly should win awards. Thus, it has no bearing.

Duane, I think we, as consumers, have some responsibility to help police situations with our purchasing decisions. For example if a fishing company makes mince meat of dolphins you might choose another company for your tuna. If a clothing line uses child labor, you would probably buy your sweater from a manufacturer who allows it's employees to have bathroom breaks and reach puberty before putting them to work.

In a lot of these cases our voice is our spending money, so we have to use it. I pick my spots. R Kelly music will not be purchased by me because I find his sleeping around reprehensible.

I've never made it more than 10 minutes into an R. Kelley song...that said:

So, the video tape shows R. Kelley showing his ID, checking the girls ID, acknowledging that she was underage and then proceeding to "turn her body into a portapotty" (in the words of Dave Chapelle)?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean innocent until we find possibly damning evidence. Even if he's probably guilty, the video COULD be fake. Who knows until we have a trial by jury?

Craig, sure, I agree with your two examples. But those examples have nothing to do with the personal lives of the respective manufacturers. The practices you cite are part of the process of production. I won't approve of the product if I disapprove of the means of production. If I disapprove of the fisherman because they are all boozehounds, let's say, that won't keep me from buying the tuna. Similarly, if I find out that Sting is a pompous asshole, I will still plop down my money for his CDs. If I happen to meet Wayne Newton at a casino, and I think he's the nicest guy in the world, I still won't listen to his music, let alone pay for it. Personal and professional behavior can be treated as separable in most (most, mind you) cases.

All your examples, boozing, being pompous, etc, are all examples of personality traits. R Kelly is on tape doing sex acts with an alleged 14 year old. Illegal vs. legal make a big difference. I think all my examples were people doing illegal things and R Kelly has allegedly done an illegal thing. He is innocent until proven guilty, but as a consumer I was put to a decision earlier. I looked at the facts, made a judgement and chose.

Is it as simple as illegal vs. legal? You must be drawing the line somewhere else, or you would have to have similar issues with Glen Campbell, Wynnona Judd, Jim Morrison, Hendrix, and hundreds of other celebs who have broken the law. Where would you draw the line? And I would claim that there are some legal behaviors that are more harmful to the world than some behaviors that are deemed illegal.

It surely seems like a double standard I agree and Kelly is pond scum without a doubt, but here is America's subconscious thinking: Kelly is a fuckwad but the girl is a teen, is a girl, appeared to be consensual, therefore Kelly is within the broadest terms of "normality" - his behavior is historically unexceptional.

Michael Jackson, on the other hand - and I repeat I am giving America's subconscious consensus - preys on children, boys that is, has turned himself into a deracinated genderless alien of historically inprecendented proportions. He is WAY outside of what can be construed as "normal." If the allegations are true, he is as false as they come on every level.

Hence the different reactions.

To get something straight here, if R. Kelly did have sex with a minor ("statuory rape"), his guilt does not depend on whether he knew the girl's age. A judge will tell a jury: If you find that R. Kelly had sex with someone under 18, then you must find him guilty of statutory rape.

That said, just because there is a videotape does not mean there is guilt. Was the videotaped woman underage? Was the tape doctored? Not to be too pedantic, but if you automatically assume guilt just because you hear that there is a videotape, you are doing a great disservice to our justice system.

I can't help it, I still like Whitney. She's still the only "diva" I can stand. She is vastly more soulful, less contrived, and more attractive than the other high maintenance bitches.

If you rub Celine Dion and Christina Aguilera together you can start a very skinny fire.

Ugh, I can't stand Whitney. She just annoys me. So do the other divas.

My line in this case is messing with kids. I know kids, especially the ones who are nearing their 16th birthdays aren't the little innocent angels that younger children are. They have their own minds, they fool people and make decisions on their own whether they are legally responsible or not. That being said, I can't handle those who take advantage of kids. I know there is a video tape and the cops are saying that one of the girls was 14 when the tape was made. I know that it hasn't gone to court yet, but I am willing to jump to the conclusion. You do whatever you want, but I am not willing to take a chance at supporting a guy who diddles children knowingly or not. I pick and choose which celebrities I am willing to support based on whether I like them or not. Child sex allegations are enough for me to not support R Kelly and also criticize those who give him awards. It's my opinion.

There are some celebrities who haven't done anything illegal whom I choose not to support. That is just as contrived as me saying R Kelly is guilty in my mind. That is the choice I get to make as a consumer. There is no measurable standard that I can draw up for you. All I know is that R Kelly makes my stomach turn because of what I perceive to be the truth in this case.

I don't wish to appear to exonerate Mr. Kelly, but there's a LOT of difference between a 14 year old girl and a 12 year old boy. Those two years in age alone make a lot of difference- besides the homosexual deviancy or, especially, his health status.

Also, 14 is not THAT young. We're rapidly becoming biological adults by that age. Loretta Lynn, for example, was considered perfectly legitimately married (and then pregnant) at 13.

Our culture has gradually raised the upper age of what is considered a "child" but a 14 year old is just NOT a child in the same way that a 6 or 8 year old is.

It might be inappropriate and illegal and perhaps deserving of punishment to bed a 14 year old, but it's really pushing the point to characterize it as "child molesting."

None of which matters much to me as a music consumer. I buy records because they're good, not because I think the singer is a swell fellow.

If he gets sent to prison, then he may not be making any records for a few years. In the meantime, he should definitely be making hay while the sun is shining- or rather while he's outside to SEE the sun shining.

Al don't you think it is partly up to you to not contribute to a guy who could potentially use your consumer dollar to do something that you COMPLETELY don't agree with? I am not talking about R Kelly specifically now, but it seems you don't think there is any responsibility when you spend your money?

Well, if the money was specifically being invested in trust funds for Hamas suicide bombers, that would be one thing. Me buying or not buying an R Kelly CD ain't going to make the difference of him having $50 for a hotel room and a videotape.

Al, I could not agree more. Not buying his music is not going to change anything. This is not one of those crimes where any action or inaction is going to help or make a dramatic difference. He's already got enough money that if he never sold another CD, he would still have millions to get hotel rooms or whatever it is he requires. I like R.kelly and I like his music. Until I am certain that he knew and believed this girls age and somehow coerced her into having sex, I refuse to believe this allegation. One can no longer trust young girls of today. As far as I know it was consensual sex and yes consent is not needed for statutory rape, but did he know this child was under age? These kids of today grow so quickly, they could pass for any age. I will reserve judgment, meanwhile, I'll keep on enjoying whatever Rkelly songs I like.

As long as we are talking about not being able to make a difference, are you going to vote in the next election? The whole not being able to make a difference thing rings kind of hollow for me. I KNOW you can't make a difference, but when do you take a moral stand?

Craig, that is not a proper comparison at all. Voting in the elections means your vote will count towards who runs your contry. You may not get who you voted for, but your vote counts. Sandra and Craig not buying Chocolate factory by Rkelly, counts towards nothing because Mr Kelly has enough cash to entice whoever and take whomever to a seedy motel or a lavish penthouse. Voting and buying Cds as ways to make a difference could not be any more different.

Just because everyone else jumps off a bridge (buys R Kelly's stuff), doesn't mean you should too. Ok, that is the most exhausted cliche I can think of. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

R. Kelly also "eloped" with the sainted Aaaliyah when she was 15 years old, and her parents had to go through a lot of legal wrangles to get their daughter out of the clutches of Kelly, and to have the marriage annuled. While Aaliyah did subsequently have a professional relationship with Kelly, she was continually, throughout her short life, confronted with embarassing questions about her past relationship with Kelly, and was reluctand to speak of it.

Despite the fact that Roman Polanski was awarded an Oscar, the vast majority of Americans, and even people in the entertainment business, continue to shun him and condemn his actions.

The fact that Loretta Lynn was married and pregnant at age 13 is the remnant of an unfortunate earlier era, in which child labor laws in general were lax. Thank goodness that the ages of consent and marriage in that part of the country are now sensible.

I defend my right to boycott the product of individuals who conduct their lives in disgraceful and illegal activities. That goes equally for Glen Campbell as it does for R. Kelly or Michael Jackson.

Dare I say it: R Kelly ... who?

I'd probably buy a book by Charles Manson if he ever penned one. I bought OJ's audio tape where he said over and over how much he loved Nicole and didn't kill her. I can't stand the actions of either Manson or OJ. One who was found guilty and the other who almost nobody in the rational thinking world thinks was innocent. But it has nothing to do with my interest in "their side of the story" -- as whacked as it might be.

Also, it's a well known fact that the RIAA gets rich of the CDs not the artist, so it's not like buying some clown's CD is going to be a direct charity to his nefarious activities.

As for the whole stars as role models thing? I think parents should be encouraging children to use anything but stars as role models of any kind. Grandparents, parents, now there are usually good role models.

Not strangers on the silver screen, in the sporting arena or spinning in the CD player. No way.

that man did it his face was showing plain as day in those videos. let me rob a bank and my face is on camera aint no way the excuse r kelly is using will work for me or any one else. he is guilty everyone seen the video!!!!!

People are picking on Michael Jackson rather than R. Kelly because of many things. You can get mad if you want, but if you look at culture and how they view celebs, they look at looks, personality, sucess and lastly, and in some cases, much lastly, morality. Currently, R. Kelly is more sucessful than M. Jackson. People like his music, so expect many people to look the other way when it comes to morality. Also look at Jackson, then look at R. Kelly. Doesn't Kelly look better than Jackson? The girls love R. Kelly! Of course they're gonna look the other way when it comes to things like this! Also, it could be because that Kelly's a first-timer and Jackson already had things like this happen to him. Whether Jackson did it or not(which I think he did), all it takes is one rumor to ruin someone. People will believe anything, and this is a world of rumors and gossip. Everyone and their mama saw the tape, but everyone and their mama(including my mama) still likes R. Kelly. That's just the way things are.

You have defined the reality well Dwaine; also, it is certainly viewed as more acceptable by society to be involved with teenage girls than preteen boys. I would only add this is not the first such accusation against Kelly - recall that Alliyah was only 15 when they wre briefly "married." And there have been others.

well first of all im doing a report on r kelly aand i dont think he did that to all them haters out there yall just mad because if wasnt yall that he took to never never land . And u cant rape nothing that has it leg open to everthing and everbody maybe he hadnt had none in a long time. i would let him take my to never never land to just don pee on me cause thats nasty so yall who do know what i mean thats cool.

i know that there is a lot of evidence but how do these people know that rkellys not lieing it is possible that he is telling the truth.It could have been just a set up.i truly think he is telling the truth.there are lots of young aged girls that dream of sleeping with a famous person.so maybe they wanted to but they are to afraid to admit that they did this to him.

Ok i think hes so f****** guilty thats is not even funny. If this man gets away with doing something like this its a shame. It will be just because he has money come on now no matter how much money you have you shouldnt have the right to sleep with underaged girls. Imagine how his wife feels. Aaliah is a perfect example married her at 14 come on now.Honestly i liked him up to the point that i saw the tape myself, thats deff. him, when u have the nerves to put your family through things like this you must really not care.. Whats sad is that he is lying to himself and the rest of the world. ''the worlds greatest''? i dont think so.

You never know what happens in the world of showbiz. Things are faked and some arent. remember 2pac shakur? People brought out doctored photos of his dead body etc. But then again, i suppose it's a different story all together. I'm doing an essay on him and i love his music, i reckon 'innocent till proven guilty' needs to be though about.

I wonder if you could ween R. Kelly and Michael Jackson off of kids by dressing up adult midgets as young boys and girls?

all of u get over it.

My baby did not have sex with them lying tramps. They need to stop lying and stop trying to mess up my boo reputation.

My baby did not have sex with them lying tramps. They need to stop lying and stop trying to mess up my boo reputation.The women are mad because it wasn't them and the men are hatin because they couldn't get as much pussy as R. Kelly did. All I have to say is you can't rape the willing. Those hoes were willing to give up their pussy to him because look at him....he fine as hell and he got money out the ass.Who wouldn't give it up to him??? Anyways like T.I. said,"Haters get on ya job.....It's motivation."

Sleeping with "kids"? I think there is a difference between a kid and a sexually developed teen (complete with breasts, pubic hair and a monthly period). Do you find it odd that depending on where you are in the world, the "age of consent" is wildly different? In Spain, it's 13, in Sweden it's 15, in California it's 18, in most other states it's 16. Who the hell can keep track of what a legal girl is? It seems awfully wacky that depending on what patch of land you are standing on determines which vaginas are open for business. Obviously, it's wrong to force any female into having sex. If in fact the girl Polanski had sex with said "no", then he raped her. I never heard his side of the story, though.

News flash: Men will want to have sex with females who have reached puberty... it's a strong biological urge. Are young teens mentally ready for sex? Perhaps not and this is why their PARENTS must be counted on to help them stay out of trouble.

i dont believe it until i see actual pictures if u know where to find pictures of it then tellme an dill tell u if its him or not

I did not see the tape but i believe its not him.As iknow rkelly. rkelly cant do that it was all a fake.my phne number [Deleted]

Okay all i wannna know is that did he really sleep with her? yes or no?

I mean i understand what the whole fuss is about but come on now... the girl could have lied about her age but yea he should of known better but come now... now a days these teens just dont care anymore they have becomming more adventurious and willing to do what ever it takes to get to popularity!

why why why why why would he do that then viedo
tape man piss

jUST TO LET YA KNOW THE GIRL LIED ABOUT HE AGE AND FOR ALL YA'LL HATIN ON RKELLY GO TO HELL MICHEAL JACKSON IS THE ONE ONE YA'LL SHOULD BE WORRY ABOUT HE NEED THE HELP NOT MY MAN HE MY BABYDADDY

If R Kelly is guilty then buying any item whereby he revieves royalty fees you are giving financial support to a sex offender. This case saddens me. Maybe if sex offenders produce great albums/films they will be free from punishment?

Even if the girl lied about her age it is the act of an intelligent and responsible adult to confirm she is of legal age. No excuses. If I close my eyes while driving & kill somebody does that make me not guilty of manslaughter?

On the other hand...teenagers now are a lot more sexually aware. But an age gap such as this would, in my humble opinion, be too big an issue to let go. I hope that financial resources does not become the deciding factor in this case.

wUZ UP IM REPERSETING IN ROC-TOWN U JNOW WHAT IT BE UM R.KELLY SLEPPING WITH KIDS YEA NO IDK IT DONT MATTA ITS NUN OF ANY OF YOU GUYZ BUISNESS SO GET WITH IT HE SEXY DATZ ALL I KNOW YALL KNOW WETHA TO LET HIM DO IT TO YOU OR NOT U OLD ENOUGH CUZZ IF DAT WUZ ME GODDANGIT YALL SILLY KIDS

Well, if R.Kelly didn't put a gun up to that girl's head, he didn't force her. He probably bribe her into doing it. But it is not 100% his fault. Just like it's not Michael's fault . These little girl these day's is very fast and hot. She opened her legs and when she found out he wasnt going to give her what she wanted , she turned it around sayin it was rape. Thats how i see it and im only 15 years and if i am intelligent enough to see that and you not it seems kind of funny. Who should be talked about now?