TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

Users who are viewing this thread

That's naive, I'm afraid. Andrew is stupid, which is well-known, and he is his own worst defense. He may be guilty of not thinking through how he's handed a teen for sex by his rich friend, but it's very obvious why the woman hounded him, he is an easy, rich target. Why didn't she hound anyone else if she was an unwilling sex slave and why now? The settlement payoff puts it in perspective.

Speaking of which, what's your due diligence procedure for having sex with a legal teen that lives with your rich friend and is in awe of your fame like many other girls? Do you hand her over a questionnaire that tries to determine if there is any coercion? Do you ask her if she's feeling safe with you and when she smiles and says yes, you bring in a psychologist to talk to her while you are pulling your pants down?
This was Andrew's plausible defense and it's the same for any other bigwig that slept with Epstein's girls. They can say they didn't know there's a coercion and if there's no further evidence, they walk out of the court. Which is probably why they are not prosecuted in the first place.
You don't think it's naive to believe that Andrew and all these other bigwigs innocently presumed these girls felt no pressure to go along with whatever was proposed, or that it was peculiar and improper for teenage girls to be hanging around with mature men they had no reason to know? Do you suppose Andrew believed this girl had inveigled her way into Epstein's life, pestering him to be invited to getaways and parties and then trying to seduce these middle aged men? As for why she didn't 'hound' (your choice of words really gives away your preconceptions in this arena) anyone else, perhaps she didn't recognise other men or perhaps, yes, she decided to pursue a case against Andrew because he was high profile and it wouldn't be ignored by the press. But if he (as seems very likely) did behave as alleged, then what's wrong with making him pay, making at least one of them pay? It really feels like typical victim blaming behaviour to try and undermine her actions with this wonky logic.

My due diligence for having sex with a 'legal teen' is that I almost certainly wouldn't under any circumstances, least of all in the dodgy situation of a teenage girl 'mysteriously, but I won't think too hard about it' apparently being in the social circle of my rich middle aged friends. Even when I was in my mid-twenties and a teenage girl (I presume she was about 16 or so) briefly flirted with me in a shop, I had no inclination to act upon it- she was very pretty and sweet, but I felt like a 40 year old in comparison to her. Now I actually am 40, most people under 20 look 14 :lol:. Anyone who was 'favoured' by Epstein in this way would almost certainly have been trusted by him in the first place due to being of a similar mindset (i.e. exploitative creeps with few scruples regarding sex), in other words they would have known what was up with these girls being there. Even if not, a mature man (30, 40, whatever) angling for sex with a 17 year old girl is sleazy and improper at the best of times.
 
she was 16. he was 40. you're putting a lot of effort into saying "how was he supposed to know" when it's pretty self evident that any such encounter is not ok and any 40 year old doing your hypothesised mental gymnastics about how it might be ok is a creep.
The mental gymnastics is not recognizing his fame and glamour and the effect it has on women and yes, even teens, while being a creep is in the eye of the beholder and not a crime.
Is DeCaprio with his dating habits even creepier then? But we like him and women do too.
It's disconcerting that you're excusing Prince Andrew's actions with stupidity as if he was naïve and blind.
He and all the others obviously knew what was going on. If that's a conspiracy theory then I'm one of the nutjobs.
I hope you also know that "sex slaves" in general are not held in chains, but by things like coercion, grooming and threats to pay off (neverending) debt.
You are acting super gullible and ignoring that Maxwell was found guilty of the very actions you describe as reasonable.
I already asked how is one to supposed to know if there is any coercion in such setups. How would you know in Andrew's place? Without knowing much or anything about Maxwell's role. These are your interesting party friends that take you places and have this vixen that's apparently available.
I think these are reasonable questions and you are being automatically judgemental and one-sided because of your liberal instinct.
My due diligence for having sex with a 'legal teen' is that I almost certainly wouldn't under any circumstances, least of all in the dodgy situation of a teenage girl 'mysteriously, but I won't think too hard about it' apparently being in the social circle of my rich middle aged friends. Even when I was in my mid-twenties and a teenage girl (I presume she was about 16 or so) briefly flirted with me in a shop, I had no inclination to act upon it- she was very pretty and sweet, but I felt like a 40 year old in comparison to her. Now I actually am 40, most people under 20 look 14 :lol:. Anyone who was 'favoured' by Epstein in this way would almost certainly have been trusted by him in the first place due to being of a similar mindset (i.e. exploitative creeps with few scruples regarding sex), in other words they would have known what was up with these girls being there. Even if not, a mature man (30, 40, whatever) angling for sex with a 17 year old girl is sleazy and improper at the best of times.
I'm glad you made the effort to spell out your test of due diligence, but it merely reveals middle class propriety and not your typical jet set hedonism that is pretty much assumed for jet set party people. You can also assume there are plenty of feeders and servants in the jet set ecosystem that play their roles and are rewarded. They can live with it. They are not trafficked or coerced.
So how is one supposed to know that the teen "masseuse" of your rich friend is being abused? Maybe she wasn't even feeling abused then at all, but later remembered that she felt used or decided to capitalize on it.
I know this looks like victim blaming and anti-metoo crap, but I'm trying to argue for the opposite side, and that includes arguments like this.
 
Last edited:
So how is one supposed to know that the teen "masseuse" of your rich friend is being abused? Maybe she wasn't even feeling abused then at all, but later remembered that she felt used or decided to capitalize on it.
I know this looks like victim blaming and anti-metoo crap, but I'm trying to argue for the opposite side, and that includes arguments like this.

I get that you are European so you have a genetic predisposition to defending pedophilia, but there is no way you sincerely believe there was no power dynamic or coercion at all. It's also very funny how while you're usually extremely dogmatic, this is the topic you decide to play devil's advocate on.

Prince Andrew is a braindead coddled monarch who has never had anyone say no to him his entire life, so I can almost believe that he is too stupid to realise what statutory rape is, but to then generalise that and say "YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW IF THERE IS ANY COERCION", with the conclusion that what prince andrew did is within both the law and social acceptability, is the most European thing I have ever read. Even if you consider the law the sole boundary of acceptability, why is your threshold for consent so stringent that it's either a written waiver or nothing at all?
 
I'm lazy and smug!
We know.
Prince Andrew is a braindead coddled monarch who has never had anyone say no to him his entire life, so I can almost believe that he is too stupid to realise what statutory rape is, but to then generalise that and say "YOU CAN'T EVER KNOW IF THERE IS ANY COERCION", with the conclusion that what prince andrew did is within both the law and social acceptability, is the most European thing I have ever read. Even if you consider the law the sole boundary of acceptability, why is your threshold for consent so stringent that it's either a written waiver or nothing at all?
That's your straw man. I can imagine many situations where I will personally know if there's coercion and many more where I wouldn't be sure. How many 40-year olds would reject a willing 16-year old in the context of a party group and ask too many questions? You would be disappointed.

People are just bloody judgmental in hindsight and hate Andrew for being stupid and privileged. And I think stupidity is his proper defense, and people don't really know enough to judge because they don't get the same opportunity to fail.
 
Last edited:
The mental gymnastics is not recognizing his fame and glamour and the effect it has on women and yes, even teens, while being a creep is in the eye of the beholder and not a crime.
Is DeCaprio [sic] with his dating habits even creepier then? But we like him and women do too.
What Guiffre was exposed to by Maxwell is like what several other girls were, and Maxwell was found guilty of those actions.
It's not a case of "star ****ing" (is the term, I believe), but of grooming and coercion. You're ignoring the case by focussing on just one thing: the fame. (Also, a 40 year old royal person is not some dream guy for a young girl. He had power not allure.)
DiCaprio or other famous people being attractive is not the same thing.
Again, Andrew knew full well what was going on. That can't be proven, but I'm not an idiot, and neither is he.
 
Last edited:
How many 40-year olds would reject a willing 16-year old in the context of a party group and ask too many questions? You would be disappointed.

Adult men perving on adolescent girls is abhorrent in most of the world. Interestingly this line of "oh, you'd do it too" is something I've heard on this forum before.

Europeans and americans have been conditioned for decades and decades with the targeted sexualisation of 16-18 year olds. People who arent part of that culture, and many within it, typically find it revolting. If you were correct and all 40 year old men were inherently predisposed to go after children, there would be no taboo and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Adult men perving on adolescent girls is abhorrent in most of the world. Interestingly this line of "oh, you'd do it too" is something I've heard on this forum before.

Europeans and americans have been conditioned for decades and decades with the targeted sexualisation of 16-18 year olds. People who arent part of that culture, and many within it, typically find it revolting. If you were correct and all 40 year old men were inherently predisposed to go after children, there would be no taboo and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I think you are in for a bad surprise as you go further in life and learn more about people and your European-this-culture-that constructs get demolished. It's just what it is. Old men perv for young women and middle class propriety is what is holding civilization together.
This doesn't mean that older men are predisposed to be pedos at all. Pedophilia and lusting for teens are very different things.
What Guiffre was exposed to by Maxwell is like what several other girls were, and Maxwell was found guilty of those actions.
It's not a case of "star ****ing" (is the term, I believe), but of grooming and coercion. You're ignoring the case by focussing on just one thing: the fame. (Also, a 40 year old royal person is not some dream guy for a young girl. He had power not allure.)
DiCaprio or other famous people being attractive is not the same thing.
Again, Andrew knew full well what was going on. That can't be proven, but I'm not an idiot, and neither is he.
That's it, I'm just going to ask Andrew what happened and how much he knew.

I'm sure it went like this.
Epstein and Maxwell: Look Andy, we have this teen "masseuse" *wink*, isn't she fun? *wink*
Andrew: Jolly good, chaps, carry on.
E+M: You know you could just **** her *not winking*. We groomed her specifically for Epstein to **** her *not winking* and now we are trafficking her *not winking* for you, our special friend!
Andrew: Jolly good, chaps, carry on. *****s her*
Virginia: Wow, I ****ed a genuine prince. *cries*
 
The mental gymnastics is not recognizing his fame and glamour and the effect it has on women...

Are we talking about Prince Andrew here? :lol:

I think at the core of the issue between you and Dan and the others is that you may be missing a piece of "experiential knowledge" that they have.

All in all though, I think you are expecting too much from the 16 year old and not enough from the 40 year old predator.
 
The mental gymnastics is not recognizing his fame and glamour and the effect it has on women and yes, even teens, while being a creep is in the eye of the beholder and not a crime.
Is DeCaprio with his dating habits even creepier then? But we like him and women do too.
Come on man. It's really not something that we should even be discussing, she was underage. The women that DiCaprio dates are in their twenties. I get that sometimes we all argue for the fun of it on this forum but I feel that you are taking this a little too far.
 
Come on man. It's really not something that we should even be discussing, she was underage. The women that DiCaprio dates are in their twenties. I get that sometimes we all argue for the fun of it on this forum but I feel that you are taking this a little too far.
Dodge this! :grin:
The age of consent in Italy is 14 years old, and rises to 16 when one participant is in a position of authority or influence over the other (teacher, clergyman, prince Andrew etc).
 
Dodge this! :grin:
The age of consent of a country doesn't magically make all of its citizens of that age able to make smart, moral or responsible decisions.

EfLugvwXkAEo86u.jpg
 
The age of consent of a country doesn't magically make all of its citizens of that age able to make smart, moral or responsible decisions.
No, but you can't say they are underage or that it's a crime to sleep with them. Which is one of the lines of argument here that needs to be curbed (and let's not talk about more popular claims of pedophilia and pedo rings).
The Epstein-related crimes are coercion and trafficking, not underage sex.
 
Dodge this! :grin:
I wasn't really going for the legal argument. If we want to go there, one could argue that the girls in question (let's call them what they are) were expecting some kind of compensation for the act (if not money, career advancement or something equivalent). In that case that is considered "prostituzione minorile" in Italy (prostitution of an underaged person), and it is a very serious crime.

But again, that's not my point. I hope no one here seriously thinks that it's ok for a man in his 40s to have intercourse with a 16 y.o. girl. And no, DiCaprio's dating habits might be questionable but they are not the same. Even an 80 y.o. man having intercourse with a woman in her 20s might be gross (and probably impressive unless there's chemical help involved), but it's still better than the other scenario.
 
No, but you can't say they are underage or that it's a crime to sleep with them.
I'm not interested in this kind of mental gymnastic. It's the source of so many evil in the world.

This whole argument only happened because you went super hard on your bias against conspiracy theory and used absolute statements all over the place, which is fresh to see because you're usually reasonable. :lol:
 
This whole argument only happened because you went super hard on your bias against conspiracy theory and used absolute statements all over the place, which is fresh to see because you're usually reasonable. :lol:
This is accurate in an offensive way, which is the best way to be accurate. :grin:

In that case that is considered "prostituzione minorile" in Italy (prostitution of an underaged person), and it is a very serious crime.
Point taken.
 
Last edited:
I think you are in for a bad surprise as you go further in life and learn more about people and your European-this-culture-that constructs get demolished. It's just what it is.

Do you think I'm 15 years old? You always bring up this **** when you have nothing to say, despite the fact that half your opinions come from arguing with guardian readers on the internet.

I think at the core of the issue between you and Dan and the others is that you may be missing a piece of "experiential knowledge" that they have

The core of the issue is that he identifies with prince andrew more than anyone else because he personally is also attracted to 16 year olds. That's it. This line of argument has happened a handful of times before and it always ends with someone defending 40-16 abusive relationships to the absolute death.

The reason I find it so disgusting is that even as a 20+ year old, I had no interest in 16 year olds. By that point theyre just children to me. And anyone in my peer group who was in a relationship of that kind of age gap was either a creep or eventually went to jail. So to see someone actively defending something so more extreme than that makes my skin crawl. I can't even fathom a society where there is no taboo against that kind of thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom