Valerie

You sure abt that? He follows a bunch of underage girls on his Instagram and commented with kisses on a 16 year old girls video of her sucking on her fingers seductively. And he knows that girl is underage because he even posted about her going missing last year, citing her age and everything. Even Emile in one of Lana's videos on Instagram said a bunch of "Lolita" girls message him, so obviously this isn't a foreign concept for people affiliated with Lana. Difference is, Barrie took it a step too far. Barrie isn't innocent, and I bet there's a reason Lana stopped following him again after she liked his Negative Creep by Nirvana tweet in Jan 2016.

Exactly. You said it right there.You only care what you are interested in or things that only affect you. You just admitted it. In your first response to me you said "those murders don't affect me, I'M a woman in the workforce. I'M, I'M, I'M" and now you're further reiterating saying "IIII never found that interesting to talk about. NEVER INTERESTED ME" you DON'T truly care about these issues as a whole and only bat an eye at the risk of things affecting YOUR life. Selfish and concerning. It reminded me of how Rose McGowan defended the convicted child molester Victor Salva saying he's sweet and gentle and that she isn't interested in what he did and now she's trying to besmirch actors names because of Harvey. You say "Lana also quoted the crystals line "he hit me and it felt like a kiss". Both songs, UV and and Cola, feature things that Lana has grown out of and doesn't want to perform anymore" but Lana has been singing the he hit me line at her most recent shows. She stopped for a couple and now she's singing it again. Grown out of it? Obviously not. Or did you conveniently forget that just like you conveniently forgot that besides namedropping Harvey in Cola, Lana sings about an array of fucked up things in her songs and references very real, heinous crimes on top of that too? It is a double standard bc you are pretending to be offended over a predators name being mentioned in a song but NOT offended over another predator being namedropped in a song. The same way you say people simplify these sexual abuse victims, is the same way you simplified murder victims simply by referring to them as "cold dead" as if they never suffered BEFORE being "cold dead" to their last breath or their families never suffer. Try telling their families that and see how far you get. What do they have? A Lana Del Rey song and video that glamorizes their families murders to comfort them? Hilarious. You say "historically artists have always referred to the past to make a point about the present" and how does Freak's Jonestown massacre video make a point about the present other than doing it simply for aesthetic pleasure? Heroin? You cant answer these things because you know it's simply to evoke visuals for the listener and/or viewer. For you these things are more visually pleasing than picturing Harvey's big fat body dominating actresses. I dont know why you just dont admit it, because that's all it boils down to in the end. You say "I won't quote everything you say" and that's because you can't answer it. 900+ families involved in the Jonestown massacre but you ignored that. Now you're getting your panties tied up over Harvey having his name in Cola. You excuse the Harvey censorship saying "It furthers a toxic culture and lana is seeing it's doing more harm than good" but what does Ultraviolence do? What does Heroin do exactly? Hundred Dollar Bill? Smarty? What do most of Lana's songs do regarding being involved with dangerous men, some that "swing at her" and she says she likes it, domestic violence, some that live generally risky lifestyles, suicide, being a side bitch, pedophilia, etc? Those do not "further a toxic culture"? Because I see a lot of "nymphets" on tumblr and instagram, some that are very young, listen to Lana and fall into these topics, quoting Lana's songs to confirm to themselves that it's all okay. So how come Harvey's name in Cola furthers a toxic culture, yet Lana's other material (and we all know there's LOTS of it) doesn't?

It's not about black and white but truth is that sexual abuse victims do have more chances than murder victims for obvious reasons.It's not about making something more important than the other or label an incident as "okay" to talk about after a certain period of time because that is not even possible.No matter how many years will pass whether an incident happened in the 60s or 70s or 80s or happening right now or will happen tomorrow they are all still horrible and vile crimes with victims. Every victim is important, living and dead ones.The families have to live and deal with the horrible memory of what happened to their beloved ones, living or dead.The dead victims don't even have a chance to live, don't even have a chance for their voice to be heard, they have nothing they are done, they are permanently done in every way. Lana wrote Cola way before any of those allegations surfaced.It has nothing to do with what Harvey did.As for the Harvey case and the victims, a lot of those victims stories are very questionable and hard to believe. There is no doubt that a certain number of those victims are lying for their benefit. Lana is not just singing about being in a consensual scandalous relationship with a rich man she knew, because that very same scenario happens everyday. It's a reality that always existed and will keep existing. The only reason she removed the song now is to not have people bullying her and trying to ruin her career.The same way she is upset for the murders,violence,pedophilia,every other incident she is singing about in her songs,she will be upset for this too and all the future incidents as well. The "time heals" and "it needs time to overcome censorship" is pure bullshit to me personally because nobody can be absolutely sure how much time a certain incident,a murder,a rape,an assault,any other horrible incident that happened years ago or recently or will happen tomorrow will need to "transcend censorship" because everyone is different, each individual will react differently, the victims families will never "be okay" with the movies,the songs,art about what happened to their beloved ones.Many artists sang abt those right at the time the incident was still "fresh", some people were fine with it and some were not. Some others reacted and so on. Lana wants and is free to sing about all of those in her songs with no exceptions.She should be able to sing about Cola too the same way it is "okay" for her to sing for the manson murders,lolita,massacres etc without having a bunch of hypocrites running to label her as rape enabler or any other vile remark just because they lack of common sense.They don't like her singing about Harvey?They shouldn't like either her singing about pedophilia,murders,domestic violence either.

You basically admit that you don't care for the murders because it doesn't affect you "the same way" and you only care for the weinstein incident because it's new. So that means in 5-10 years you won't care for that either anymore? Interesting view. Also Manson was trying to be a musician and couldn't make it so he used young people to commit heinous crimes in his honour to gain a "legacy". But what is making a "point" in Heroin, Freak music video about the present? Lana filmed a rape reenactment vid with Eli Roth and you know there is people in the world being raped right now. Too soon? "Murder victims are cold dead and sexual harassment victims have a hard time to be heard to be believed ,that's why it's delicate;" What about the families affected?They never stop grieving.900+ families affected by Jonestown massacre that Lana uses in her Freak video. So if Harvey killed these girls Lana could keep the Cola line because the girls would be dead. right? She made the choice to take it off (not that she had any choice in this anyway) because she would be called a rapist enabler simply because it's "new". You say "time healsss" then I guess judging by your argument you won't care for the Harvey incident victims in a few years either. I want to see how "time will heal" the dead victims though. They don't even have any time.They are dead. What about the references Bowie, Ramones and Neil Young and more artists made about Manson very early too? It wasn't decades later.They made references too soon after the murders.There wasn't enough time passed for it to be "okay to be referenced" in due time. So? How exactly those tragedies "transcended censorship" just because they are decades old? What about the manson murders and how Sharon Tate was brutally murdered with her baby still inside her?? What about her sister that is still alive to this day and has to live everyday with the horror of what happened to her sister? Are you going to tell her "hey get over it.it's decades old.people can sing about it" ? What about the 900+ dead people in Jonestown massacre? They are all dead. It's okay to sing about them but not for Harvey? How? Who says that? You are acting like being a sexual abuse victim is worse than being murdered. What logic is this? You don't even know what these murdered victims went through before their final breath. Murder victims don't even have a second chance.They can't do anything, time won't "heal" them.They are dead. At least sexual abuse victims as horrible as it is,they still have a pulse. Sexual abuse victims have a chance in life to live and heal as much as possible and see better and happy days.The families still have the person in flesh with them even if they get sexually abused.The dead victims don't even have that.The horror and pain they went through before leaving their last breath I guess doesn't matter right? Because they are cold dead. Their families living with the memory of this don't matter either probably yes? What do murder victims families have? Songs by Lana? You think that Lana would censor Cola if she could get away with people calling her a rape enabler and bully her and try to ruin her career? Nop, she would keep it exactly like how she has kept every other controversial topic in her songs. She only censored it because she knew people are hypocrites and would try to ruin her. Murder victims don't have a chance to rehabilitate their lives. Sharon Tates baby didn't even get a life. No problem though, it doesn't matter it happened in the 60s. Her living sister doesn't matter either. Sharon is just a cold dead apparently. You have no idea what the murder victims went through before dying.The horror and pain and agony often times fighting for their lives before dying. An example out of thousands: Jyoti Singh was an indian young 23 yo girl that got gang raped brutally in 2012.She died 13 days later due to her injuries.That girl fought for her life, she wanted to live.Despite what happened to her she wanted to live. She doesn't matter either anymore I guess.Her family doesn't matter either.She's a cold dead now. While all those incidents are horrible, we need to keep in mind that despite the differences obviously in being a dead victim or an alive victim there is no doubt that any victim, all victims do have indeed a "second chance" if you'd like to call it that way because they are still breathing and moving as best as possible with support through life. Dead victims have nothing.No chances, no voices, nothing. The point is not to make a difference or set a standard to judge what is "ok" and what is "not ok" to use as reference in songs, arts, books, movies, music videos and so on. Every situation, every crime are all either ok to be used in arts,songs etc or not ok at all. Obviously Lana and any other artists don't have any bad intentions with writing those songs. However it's hypocritical to cherry pick and point a finger at them to yell "you will only sing about those murders because yayy they happened 5-20-40 years ago so it's cool, but not about Harvey because of the victims that came forward with their stories 20 years later and it's delicate and "fresh" eventhough the stories are not even fresh they happened 20 years ago but yeah let's jump on the same bandwagon as everyone does and ignore also the families of the dead victims,and sharon's sister living everyday with the memory and the movies and songs about her sisters death so yeah, don't sing about Harvey Lana, we will bully you and call you a rape enabler." All of those cases are all equally delicate. We can't cherry pick and say one is okay and the other is not okay to sing about. We will either be okay with all or not with any at all.

I don't think its a matter of being "comfortable" to quote now or tomorrow or in 5-10 years. The manson murders and jonestown massacre just because they happened decades ago doesn't mean its "okay or not okay" then and now to use as reference.They are horrible events that no matter how many years will pass they will be still important and shocking parts of history. Who says it will be ok in 5-10 years for weinstein? and not just for weinstein but for any horrible event like the manson murders.who says when it's 'okay' or not for that and how they draw the line for the Harvey incident but not for the manson murders? No it's not delicate because it involves people and new voices, they are all delicate not just the Harvey incident. the manson murders is delicate too, jonestown massacre is delicate too, pedophilia, violence and so on. They are all important. If singing about manson is "okay" then it should be "okay" for Cola too. There is no difference in those events because they are all in fact important and shocking and horrible. As for the Harvey case, the only "new and fresh" bit is the exposure of Harvey's actions. The stories of those women that came forward are not "fresh". They all came forward to share stories that happened 5-10-20 years ago. If people are okay with lana or any other artist singing about the manson murders,jonestown,lolita and pedophilia,violence etc then they should be okay for Harvey in the Cola song too. No exceptions. They can't cherry pick and say "Oh! I love when lana is singing about the manson murderss in that song yess i love it, but no no no i dont want her to sing about Harvey in that song". This is hypocritical. They either won't like ALL of those songs or they like them all. No exceptions. Well of course Lolita and that theme is a taboo. It's about an adult molesting a 12 year old.Also there is rumors about the author of Lolita being a pedophile.As for clockwork orange, UV was named after that novel and that novel features probably the most famous rape scene in a movie of all time. Yet lana is singing without any problem about all the above. There is no issue singing for the manson murders or the jonestown massacres (where 909 people died) or pedophilia,domestic violence,etc yet somehow its not "ok" for her to sing about Harvey? Says who? And how exactly those tragedies "transcended censorship" just because they are decades old? What about the manson murders and how Sharon Tate was brutally murdered with her baby still inside her?? What about her sister that is still alive to this day and has to live everyday with the horror of what happened to her sister? Are you going to tell her "hey get over it.it's decades old.people can sing about it" ? What about the 900+ dead people in Jonestown massacre? They are all dead. It's okay to sing about them but not for Harvey? How? Who says that? Ramones, Neil Young, David Bowie, and many more acts were singing about the Manson murders/referring to Manson very early on,so is time still an issue for these people? what about all the rappers who refer to heinous crimes making punchlines out of them too? "time" is no excuse whether it's decades old, or 1 year old or fresh. People use columbine,manson etc all the time. It's not even a matter of what is "socially acceptable" either. It's not socially acceptable to sing about being beaten either but lana does it. so what? I think it's utterly ridiculous to say that Lana is upset by the Harvey incident because I'm sure she is helluva upset about the manson murders too, the jonestown massacre,pedophilia,violence. She is upset for ALL of those things but she still sings about all of them, so why not sing about Harvey too? There is absolutely no logic in this. No logic at how people assume and say "ohh it's okay for lana to sing about manson murders who cares its decades old but noooo it's not okay to sing about Harvey" Where is the logic? I see none. Just because one event is 5-10-20 years old doesn't take away the horror and importance from it. They will be all equally upsetting. We can't be "okay" with one and "not okay" with the other. We will be okay with ALL of them or not at all. The only reason lana agreed and did the smart move to remove Cola is because people will be disgusting and try to bully and ruin her. Not because it "upset" her. Yes what happened with Harvey upset her just like how the manson murders and pedophilia and everything else she sings about in her songs upset her too. You guys keep mentioning that with time these cases push through censorship, so what? Does that change the pain of over 900 families? That's how many died in jonestown. Does that change the 7 victims families that were left affected by the murders the manson family carried out? Will the pain miraculously disappear for the victims of Harvey Weinstein? No. So how come in your minds Lana singing about the manson family, domestic violence, pedophilia etc and demonstrating rape in the video with eli roth or mass murder like in jonestown massacre inspired freak video is ok due to "time passing"? people are still widely affected by this and copycat crimes too. no matter how much time passes, one isn't better than the other. You guys just want to make yourselves feel better about your hypocrisy towards the matter because you conveniently forgot that the other things Lana sings about that you love and treasure is just as "bad" as the Harvey line in Cola.

I liked this interview! and lana looked so comfortable with the interviewer! but I feel there was a part that I believe was unnecessary and kinda forced and made Lana feel uncomfortable. When the interviewer asked her about Cola... the way she practically forced Lana to agree to remove the song from the list with how she was like "a song you will retire from the catalogue now?" Lana didn't have really a choice but to agree.. I understand that she absolutely supports the women and she also pointed that out but that song was written way before the harvey allegations surfaced. It has nothing to do with what Harvey did. It's just a song. Besides what's the difference? Heroin refers to the Manson Family murders w/ the blood on the walls and even namedropping him in the opening line,jonestown massacre in the original UV video/freak video, the pedo (lolita) theme, violence references in her songs? why censoring Cola? by that logic she should censor the rest songs too.