Eminem Terrified As Daughter Begins Dating Man Raised On His Music
News • Entertainment • celebrities • music • ISSUE 49•26 • Jun 27, 2013Since learning that his daughter’s new boyfriend loved his music growing up, Eminem has been worried sick about her.
ROCHESTER, MI—Hip-hop artist Marshall Mathers, a.k.a. Eminem, said he was left wholly terrified today after meeting his daughter Hailie’s new boyfriend Justin Denham, an 18-year-old who was reportedly raised on the rapper’s music.
Saying he could barely fathom the thought of Hailie, 17, with a man who ever enjoyed listening to, or was inspired by, his often misogynistic and violent lyrics, Eminem, 40, claimed he was disturbed from the second Denham said he was “a huge fan” of all of the rapper’s seven albums.
“Justin said I was his favorite artist when he was growing up, and now he wants to go out with my little girl,” said Eminem, telling reporters he didn’t even want to imagine what Denham’s views on relationships could possibly entail given his self-professed love of albums that include songs about mutilating women. “Honestly, I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do here. How am I supposed to let Hailie go out with a guy who says I was a huge influence on him and all of his friends?”
“I mean, this guy’s probably listened to my song ‘Kim,’” Eminem continued. “I rapped about cutting my wife’s throat and then driving around with her in my trunk in that song. Jesus.”
Citing lyrics where he discussed raping a woman with an umbrella to “make her pussy wider,” the visibly shaken multi-platinum artist said he can’t imagine sitting by while his oldest daughter spends time alone with a man whose worldview could have been even slightly influenced by any of his songs.
Eminem added that while Hailie has repeatedly claimed Justin is a “good guy who treats her well,” he seriously doubts anyone who likes the song “Kill You,” where he brutally describes killing a woman and hiding her in a closet, could ever be a decent person.
“His favorite song is ‘Superman’—a track where I said I was going to put anthrax on a girl’s tampon and slap her until she can’t stand,” said Eminem, adding he could only imagine the types of drugs and alcohol songs like “Purple Pills” and “Crack A Bottle” had led him to do. “He better not think he can get away with all this stuff with Hallie. Or maybe he does. I mean, this is a guy who was listening to me rap about beating women ever since he was just a kid.”
“And his parents let him listen to it?” Eminem continued. “What kind of house was that? I don’t even want to think about what kind of people they are.”
Eminem went on to say he was even further dismayed when Denham said he also grew up listening to artists such as Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, and Ludacris, and told reporters he could only imagine the sorts of relationship lessons he pulled out of music like “Bitches Ain’t Shit” and “Move Bitch.”
“At this point, I suppose it would be ideal for Hailie to date someone who never listened to any one of my songs, ever,” said Eminem. “Why can’t she find someone who listened to music that wasn’t about having sex with prostitutes and then painting a room red with their blood?”
“Jesus,” Eminem added, “I have to go find my daughter right now.”
I wonder how many people will say "I wish that I hadn't sent my children to public education.... twisted history, twisted civics, free condoms and unionized teachers lead by a central planning committee of 'educators'....
ReplyDeleteYeah, probably better to keep them in a cave until they 18, choose a spouse for them, pick their job for them and go into their house once a day to make sure they are living right. Regardless of what you think of my politics TS, I don't steal, I don't kill, I don't eat things that were killed, I don't get drunk or stoned, I work and am fully self sufficient, I work with dying people, I volunteer my time and skills in a free medical clinic and have a happy marriage. I see nothing there that contributes to the collapse of society.
ReplyDeleteI am the person I am today because I made a lot of mistakes and learned from them. Going to public school had nothing to do with the mistakes I made. My homelife, on the other hand, where I watched my family get torn apart by addiction and selfishness, had a lot to do with the mistakes I later made. Eminem seems to be showing a bit of maturity here and hopefully some remorse. If so, good on him.
and yet you stand up for thieves and low lifes and murders .. well as long as YOU don't do it right Max... when you get tired of patting yourself on the back there is a real messed up world that you defend...
DeleteI'm guessing there is some tie in here to the Zimmerman/Martin thing. We can't all be as wise as you Angie and able to to correctly judge every situation and determine that a shitbag needs to die no matter what the means. You epitomize what Saul Alinski taught.
Delete"Regardless of what you think of my politics TS, I don't steal, I don't kill, I don't eat things that were killed, I don't get drunk or stoned, I work and am fully self sufficient, I work with dying people, I volunteer my time and skills in a free medical clinic and have a happy marriage. I see nothing there that contributes to the collapse of society."
ReplyDeleteMax... you shouldn't feel so persecuted.... I never said that all people who lean to the left were bad..... they just support, with their vote, people and by proxies movements that are.... Most women who want no more than equality would ever directly vote for a group that, at its core, advocate the culling of the male population by 90%.... of course that is only because they are needed for genetic diversity....
As far as keeping them in the cave.... interesting.... It is much better to place them into social indoctrination early so that parental guidance becomes less relevant at an earlier age.
" I never said that all people who lean to the left were bad..... they just support, with their vote, people and by proxies movements that are."
DeleteBut I shouldn't feel persecuted by all or nothing statements like that? While I really don't agree with much of what is considered conservative thought today because it has gone sharply to the right, I can relate to moderate people right of center. At the least, I can understand where they are coming from because I've held the same views at one time or another. I don't for a second believe that everyone who votes Republican buys into all the corporate welfare and war mongering that goes with that party or with the candidates like Sharon Angle or Michelle Bachman. But they don't have much choice.
I voted for Bush instead of Gore because I didn't like his message in that campaign. How do you square that with your all or nothing axiom here?
" I don't for a second believe that everyone who votes Republican buys into all the corporate welfare and war mongering that goes with that party or with the candidates like Sharon Angle or Michelle Bachman."
DeleteI don't believe that either Max... This is the point that you miss when I make such a statement.... I WON’T VOTE FOR CANDIDATES that support such actions. While I will probably never vote for a winning candidate in my life time, I will not give my vote to people who will lead the country in a >>>direction<<< that is far right with respect to military and corporate power or far left with respect to rights without responsibilities and laws that dictate moral behavour... The only way Washington changes is when we change which is why I said.... you and I may arrive at a similar place with respect to ... say... abortion.... but our approach to that position is considerably different. I know that the drivers of the Republican Party want to dominate the world and could give a damn about anyone lower than the level of director in a company..... I know this and to vote for Romney or Bush is to vote for that policy and likewise to vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for bigger government, more welfare and less responsibility.... While no candidate will ever be perfect.... some are much more perfect than others....
" I know that the drivers of the Republican Party want to dominate the world and could give a damn about anyone lower than the level of director in a company..... I know this and to vote for Romney or Bush is to vote for that policy and likewise to vote for Clinton or Obama is to vote for bigger government, more welfare and less responsibility...."
DeleteSome days I completely agree with this line of thought, other days, not so much. Obama was not my moral choice, but he was proposing SOME things I agreed with and on SOME things, he has delivered. He has unfortunately also delivered a perpetuation of policy of never letting war end and of letting the power of our security agencies continue to grow.
In my hypothetical dream world, the polemics of having a Republican of Democratic president should be counterbalanced by the House and Senate. Instead, congress is largely a gerrymandered body of homogeneity and spite, while the senate has become a chamber where the unwritten new rule is that you can't do anything of consequence unless you have 60 votes. In short, our world is now winner take all. I was "this close" last cycle to voting for a non two party candidate. In all seriousness, I have to concede the point to you that as long as I vote for a two party candidate because I want to vote against a perceived agenda, I'm not doing the most I can to effect change.
Of Political Parties:
Delete"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests."
George Washington - Farewell Address
To me, the most damaging thing we did to the Republic was the rather dubious passage of the 17th amendment to solve a problem that could have been solved and still left the senatorial power at the state level... where it belonged... closer to the people but not directly in the hands of federalist power.
I'm a little sleepy and admittedly not plugged in enough to understand why direct election of US senators is tyrannizing me. Would it be better to let our gerrymandered states further their unchallenged power and pick the senators as well? I honestly don't see how that makes things better but I'm willing to hear what you have to say about it.
DeleteThree Things:
DeleteGerrymandering is not a new function of the political system as it was commented on the federalist papers preceding the ratification of the Constitution. It is yet another problem with national two party systems which are strong drivers of district realignment. Redistricting would be easily solved if the electorate were knowledgeable about its process and effects. It could be effectively stopped by changes to state constitutions allowing for redistricting to take place.. say... at set intervals on a rotating schedule of geographic areas... but people must be interested enough in state politics to make it happen..... much the same as campaign reform.... it is relatively easy to solve.... BUT.
I do not believe in direct democracy.. 1) history has shown repeatedly it failures 2) if it were a direct democracy where things were voted for by majority vote... abortion would be illegal, gays would be locked in the closet and women would still not have the vote. Often the ‘tyranny of the majority’ comes up in present governing but and unless you have proportional representation... direct democracy would be even worse.
I believe in distributed power. The problem that we have is that lobbyists only have to work on and pay off 536 people and all live and work on K street.... were senators selected at state level as the constitution envisioned, the purchase of influence would be much more diversified and much closer to the people who elect them as states have different vested interest in federal law. Geographical areas would once again have a direct input into the nature of laws being passed in Washington. Of course those who can see nothing but a strong federal do not understand the mistake made by the 17th amendment to both personal and states rights.
"Would it be better to let our gerrymandered states further their unchallenged power and pick the senators as well?"
Perhaps the same problem exists, in your eyes, on the world stage... perhaps the US should cede power to a world body so that your life is.... more directly represented?
Need to ponder this some more, but here are basic thoughts. Gerrymandering isn't new and I like the idea of rotating redistricting. But, like campaign reform, it won't happen because the vested interests have so much at stake financially. With the SCOTUS ruling, we may never restrict money in campaigns. Be that as it may, the physical location of K street is not the problem, the rules that give them unfettered ownership of our legislators is. IMO.
DeleteThe jump at the end from life in America to our position in the world is a bit of a straw man. I think you know I'm not remotely suggesting that. I am attacking the concept of gerrymandering though. While you see me as this person who dreams of a federal government that tells you what to do, I instead seek a similar but different distribution of power. I respectfully disagree that letting gerrymandered states choose their senators will distribute power. All it will do, IMO, is distribute lobbyists away from Washington TO local state houses. If we agree that monied influence is the problem, then solutions that limit the influence of money are what should fix the problem.
I understand what you are saying in your third para there, I just don't come to the same conclusion. The lobbyists on K street already represent many local interests such as big ag and other industry. To me, the Federal system should be a counterbalance to local legislators being bought and owned wholesale by business in the community. What happens when states start tarrif wars with each other to protect their local businesses? Again, I get your point, I just don't come to the same conclusion. IMO, concentrated power, no matter where it lies, is the real problem.
I am not a fan of direct democracy either when it becomes mob rule. I am in favor, however, of allowing the majority of America to change its mind on issues. If you ask people if they like abortion, overwhelmingly they will say no. If you ask people if they want abortion to be outlawed completely, I believe they also say no. If you then ask people if that want abortion to exist but have some reasonable restrictions, I think you start to get to genuine consensus.
What goes around comes around m & m.
ReplyDelete