Prince Andrew

slowmotion

Quite dreadful
Location
lost somewhere
Stop being obtuse, slowmo. I don't claim to know what you think, but I can see what you write, and as the idea that being pissed off about a visit to the in-laws amounts to being trafficked is patently absurd, I can only assume that it was an extremely lame joke. And is Google broken where you are or something?
Google's fine. I read the Mann Act on it a few minutes ago. Anyway, I wanted to get a definition of trafficking from the people here, and they stepped up to the task. BTW, I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my attempt at humour.
 

swansonj

Guru
I don't think anybody is denying that some people might find the idea of a powerful 43 year old man and a seventeen year old shagging utterly distasteful, but it's probably not that uncommon, and it is certainly legal in the UK (I think). Anyway, nothing has been proven in that regard. I have not been following all the stuff in the media about it. What interests me really is the reaction to it, and how people seem to be quite willing to get their pitchforks out because of their wish to bundle up their dislike of royalty with an accusation of a sex crime, and have little regard for solid evidence.
I think Epstein left about $500 million. US lawyers must be wetting themselves in anticipation of getting their snuffling snouts in that particular greasy trough.
Saying that this is about people's dislike of royalty is your words and, possibly, your attempt to distract, not mine. This is about male power, not about royalty per se.
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
I don't think anybody is denying that some people might find the idea of a powerful 43 year old man and a seventeen year old shagging utterly distasteful, but it's probably not that uncommon, and it is certainly legal in the UK (I think). Anyway, nothing has been proven in that regard. I have not been following all the stuff in the media about it. What interests me really is the reaction to it, and how people seem to be quite willing to get their pitchforks out because of their wish to bundle up their dislike of royalty with an accusation of a sex crime, and have little regard for solid evidence.
I think Epstein left about $500 million. US lawyers must be wetting themselves in anticipation of getting their snuffling snouts in that particular greasy trough.
I'm not talking about the distastefulness or indeed possible 'illegality' of sexual relations between two people with that age differences, and power imbalance.

I directly reference the circumstances whereby a young woman's body was 'made available' to a visitor.

Allegedly I know - but that is the alleged crime.

There are clearly abuses of power and control going on in a situation like that ari

That's what I was talking about, a guy making a young woman 'available' to another.

Not whether it is technically '"legal' although it sounds very much like pimping at the least, coercive abuse possibly too, if the young woman had been brought there, she wouldn't have much say in what went on, and could be controlled both physically or psychologically.

I wonder whether you really don't see that was my point, or did you just choose to deflect it?

I really couldn't care less about whether the man is royalty, or whether either of them possesses vast monerary wealth,


Obviously those things allows them to exercise more power, and abuse that power, but it doesn't change the circumstances of what is alleged to have taken place.

My point still stands that some guys (and doubtless some women) appear to think that opportunistic sexual predation is acceptable, in some circumstances, so long as direct force is not used.

Which leads to that idea that if a woman doesn't durectly fight back, then all is cool and groovy, and that consent is given.

It seems to be a commonly enough held misconception so as to need refuting fairly regularly, in court and elsewhere.

Or it may be as @theclaud suggests that some folks are being deliberately disingenuous.

TThey either want to talk about the dry legalities of this the case.

Or the salacious detail, and the implications for the Royal family

Or the possibility that this is all about class war, or envy or somesuch.

Not many seem to want to face up to the fact that these levers of coercion, power and control are routinely used and abused in order that the more powerful obtain sexual gratification, at the expense of vulnerable people, and leave them damaged by it.

And how do we prevent that before it happens, rather than wait til afterwards to prosecute.

Prosecutions in this area are notoriously difficult to obtain, and the harm is already done, so it would seem we need to come at this from other angles.

Such as naming the problem as abuse, and understanding the true nature of consent - not just the legally binding version.

Otherwise people will continue to get damaged in this way, and the perpetrators will continue with this behaviour, in the belief that if it is 'technically legal' as far as they could make out, so no harm is done, or at least they really don't care about the harm done, so long as they get what they want, and can get away with it.

Edited - for clarity.
 
Last edited:

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
Google's fine. I read the Mann Act on it a few minutes ago. Anyway, I wanted to get a definition of trafficking from the people here, and they stepped up to the task. BTW, I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my attempt at humour.
I know we really do need more jokes about trafficking, particularly sex trafficking.

It's such a jolly old subject.

I wish I didn't keep falling into the trap of doing other peoples homework for them on request though.

:blink:
 

Tail End Charlie

Well, write it down boy ......
I'm not talking about the distastefulness or indeed possible 'illegality' of sexual relations between two people with that age differences, and power imbalance.

I directly reference the circumstances whereby a young woman's body was 'made available' to a visitor.

Allegedly I know - but that is the alleged crime.

There are clearly abuses of power and control going on in a situation like that ari

That's what I was talking about, a guy making a young woman 'available' to another.

Not whether it is technically '"legal' although it sounds very much like pimping at the least, coercive abuse possibly too, if the young woman had been brought there, she wouldn't have much say in what went on, and could be controlled both physically or psychologically.

I wonder whether you really don't see that was my point, or did you just choose to deflect it?

I really couldn't care less about whether the man is royalty, or whether either of them possesses vast monerary wealth,


Obviously those things allows them to exercise more power, and abuse that power, but it doesn't change the circumstances of what is alleged to have taken place.

My point still stands that some guys (and doubtless some women) appear to think that opportunistic sexual predation is acceptable, in some circumstances, so long as direct force is not used.

Which leads to that idea that if a woman doesn't durectly fight back, then all is cool and groovy, and that consent is given.

It seems to be a commonly enough held misconception so as to need refuting fairly regularly, in court and elsewhere.

Or it may be as @theclaud suggests that some folks are being deliberately disingenuous.

TThey either want to talk about the dry legalities of this the case.

Or the salacious detail, and the implications for the Royal family

Or the possibility that this is all about class war, or envy or somesuch.

Not many seem to want to face up to the fact that these levers of coercion, power and control are routinely used and abused in order that the more powerful obtain sexual gratification, at the expense of vulnerable people, and leave them damaged by it.

And how do we prevent that before it happens, rather than wait til afterwards to prosecute.

Prosecutions in this area are notoriously difficult to obtain, and the harm is already done, so it would seem we need to come at this from other angles.

Such as naming the problem as abuse, and understanding the true nature of consent - not just the legally binding version.

Otherwise people will continue to get damaged in this way, and the perpetrators will continue with this behaviour, in the belief that if it is 'technically legal' as far as they could make out, so no harm is done, or at least they really don't care about the harm done, so long as they get what they want, and can get away with it.

Edited - for clarity.
I've read a few posts over the years, and that is one of the best. Put far better than I ever could.
 

nickyboy

Norven Mankey
Saying that this is about people's dislike of royalty is your words and, possibly, your attempt to distract, not mine. This is about male power, not about royalty per se.
I think the broader context is the gentle erosion of the belief, held by those in positions of power, that they are not subject to the same checks and balances that we are

One could easily see this having played out very differently 30 years ago. Which hopefully means in another 30 years from now it will play out differently from how it does today. As a society we are becoming less deferential to those in positions of power, particularly those in positions they haven't "earned". And that can only be a good thing

To broaden this out a little, I was encouraged by comments that Charles would like to see a smaller Royal Family. I still think there is a place for a Royal Family and it's important if we have one that it retains its majesty, pomp and circumstance. But a much slimmed down one feels like the right way to go.
 

slowmotion

Quite dreadful
Location
lost somewhere
The simple question, if it were genuine, would have been: What is trafficking?

However, you seemed to feel it needed to be ridiculed with the clumsy comparison of being taken to visit some relatives, which makes me suspect that you already knew the answer but wanted to mock.
I asked because I didn't know. I wasn't mocking anybody. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if being taken somewhere against your will counts as trafficking. Of course I knew that ,if it was, it would be at the mildest end of the spectrum, but I was still curious to find out.
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
I think the broader context is the gentle erosion of the belief, held by those in positions of power, that they are not subject to the same checks and balances that we are

One could easily see this having played out very differently 30 years ago. Which hopefully means in another 30 years from now it will play out differently from how it does today. As a society we are becoming less deferential to those in positions of power, particularly those in positions they haven't "earned". And that can only be a good thing

To broaden this out a little, I was encouraged by comments that Charles would like to see a smaller Royal Family. I still think there is a place for a Royal Family and it's important if we have one that it retains its majesty, pomp and circumstance. But a much slimmed down one feels like the right way to go.
Could I petition for a much faster erosion of that idea that having physical, economic, social, psychological, or any other power or privelege over someone else, earned or otherwise, gives you the right of access to their body, for your own gratification.

Please?

Thirty years seems like an awfully long time to be waiting for this to continue 'playing out'.

It never was OK, it was often just socially sanctioned for multiple reasons.

It certainly isn't OK now.

Ps I think the royal family is an expensive, outdated, anachronistic, embaressment.

But its continued existence, beyond the fact that it feeds into this deferential tone towards certain sections of society, concerns me much less, than many other more pressing matters.
 
Last edited:

slowmotion

Quite dreadful
Location
lost somewhere
Saying that this is about people's dislike of royalty is your words and, possibly, your attempt to distract, not mine. This is about male power, not about royalty per se.
I'm not saying it's solely about dislike of royalty. It's mainly about people's revulsion at the abuse of young women, and rightly so. However, the dislike of royalty seems to be an excuse for suspending the usual reasonable standards of solid evidence before vilifying someone. That's all.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
I asked because I didn't know. I wasn't mocking anybody. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if being taken somewhere against your will counts as trafficking. Of course I knew that ,if it was, it would be at the mildest end of the spectrum, but I was still curious to find out.
Sorry, that's not remotely credible.
 
Top Bottom