Prince Andrew Can't Sweat

Well, no I don’t GSM.

If the person is a minor, it’s up to the adult responsibility to make the right legal and moral decision.

That’s the legal difference between being an adult and being a child.

I'm actually appalled that anyone would think a 13 year old of either sex would be OK "initiating sex".
No one has said "all women are victims" but 13 year olds who are bribed, coerced, manipulated or otherwise persuaded not just to have sex wih one person but with others are victims. We know that adults are sometimes victims in relationships which are controlling why on earth would you imagine a child wasn't?
If that control lasts beyond the age of consent then the question has to be asked was the person able to give consent? I would say if he/she was still within the area of influence of their abuser then they were not.
I don't think it is our sisterly duty to support all statements however if there is substantial corroborating evidence that this was not only the lifestyle but the business of the person involved then this must be taken into account. If a third person is accused and chose to involve themselves with someone known to provide the services of children then they will find themselves having to prove that they did not take part in those activities.

Epstein was found guilty of procuring a child for prostitution. He did a plea bargain but apparently there were 36 children who had accused him. He was a child abuser.
VG says she was abused by him and Maxwell.
She says she had sex with PA.
Is it OK for a man to have sex with an abused child whilst she is still under the influence of her abuser?

By the way GSM you never told me how much a child should cost. If she's hungry and someone buys her a meal is that enough?

That was to Galaxy.

We know the law states that they can’t consent, regardless of the facts, though the defence may adduce those facts in mitigation. That has never been in doubt. Do you however accept that there are 13 year olds who decide with no coercion to be sexually active, know exactly what they are doing but may later decide to embroil their partners in criminal and/or civil actions?
The sisterhood comment relates primarily to Dabi’s post but others also have a tendency to claim that all women are victims with whom we should show solidarity.

Sex between two minors is a difficult area.

Sex between a minor and an adult is illegal and morally wrong. The age of consent is considered to be the point where a minor becomes able to make those decisions.

Coercion of either sex is illegal, whether adult or minor and morally wrong.

Equally shocking is the statement that women should stand up for their own sex in a court. That a woman on trial should be able to count in the vote of any women jurors, regardless of evidence.

And yet some posters seem willing to let that assertion go unchallenged.

Right so we are clear then 13 year olds cant consent to sex. I am not sure how many times I have to say that it is age which is my concern not sex so not sure how the sisterhood comment applies. I would feel the same if a 40 year old woman had behaved in the way Epstein did.

I know about the law Galaxy but it doesn’t extend to my points 2 and 3 above.
I have not said that a man having sex with a 13 year old is ok. Do you not accept that many girls of this age are sexually active of their own volition and that their partners may not be much older than them?

It's not the 'rules' it's the law. They cant consent.
I dont know how many times I have said this if it was a boy I would feel the same.
To be honest there is no way I would want to be part of a club that thinks men having sex with a 13 year old is ok. Deeply creepy.

Your last post sums up my view of what Dabi says perfectly Peasblossom.
I think the rules are:
1 Even if she initiates sex an underage girl is a always a victim of abuse.
2 All women are victims regardless of the circumstances and
3 It is our sisterly duty to believe them and if sitting on a jury to find them not guilty.
Glad not to be a member of the club.

Anniebach

If the jury at the trial of Myra Hindley shared Dabi’s thinking
she wouldn’t have been found guilty

When I read the book a thousand splendid suns one of the parts that haunted me was the statement by the Taliban when finding her guilty was that a woman's statement was only worth half that of a man's as women could not be trusted. After reading Dabi's comment I can regretfully see why they think that.

If the jury at the trial of Myra Hindley shared Dabi’s thinking
she wouldn’t have been found guilty

Dabi

trisher

So you are effectively saying that 13 year olds can be bought GSM and that's OK? It's weird that a law which was actually brought in to prevent this happening to children is now considered unnecessary. Do you have an amount which you consider makes this acceptable? Or are poorer girls just going to be cheaper?
As for VG "living with her boyfriend at 13". She ran away from home was picked up by 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger and spent 6 months with him. He ran a model agency which was a front for sex trafficking. He now has convictions for alien smuggling for prostitution, interstate prostitution and money laundering. A perfect "boyfriend" for a 13 year old.

Go trisher go! This sums it up nicely. Funny how people forget that the females have and still continue to been treated poorly world wide. That slavery still exists. Anytime a young woman stands up for herself in a court of law she cannot count on the older women vote. Women should support their side even if they do not agree with the particulars of each case.

Wow Dabi. No, no, no.
This is just the kind of immorality that I was protesting about.

When you called to a court of law, as a juror nobody should be able to “count on your vote”.

It is your duty to present make your decision based on the evidence given, not on your personal prejudices.

I’m horrified to think that someone would are part in a judicial proceeding having already decided that whatever has happened, the woman will get her vote.

Can you not see how very, very wrong that would be.

Lucca I assure you it’s not because he is a royal . Wealth or titles make not the slightest difference to me .

I believe he did have sex with Giuffrie, but still do not believe
Giuffre’s claims given in her many interviews.

Anniebach

No Lucca I have said I believe he lied, I accept the majority here will say if I believe he lied I must accept Giuffrie spoke the
truth and all that matters is her age.

She was of legal age.

It is obvious Andrew is guilty of sleeping with a 17 year old,
of being wealthy, of being a member of the royal family and his mother is defender of the faith.

I’m not bothered about him being wealthy or royal.that is not my point.
I just was getting the impression that because he is royal you were inclined to disbelieve Guiffre.

Peasblossom, your (or anyone else's)personal "taste" regarding morality is of great value. Also, you have not diverted the thread by generalising about sexual morality. What we need to do is find the general ethic that makes some acts immoral.

Males exploiting females is not the only immoral scenario. I heard of a woman in Kenya, when it was a British colony and she had native servants, who got a man servant to masturbate for her entertainment. This was immoral because he was her servant who needed the paid work and so was coerced by the woman who was his employer. Maybe it did not do the man a lot of harm, or maybe he even enjoyed it, but it was wrong of the woman to take advantage of her power over the man.

I’m out so a quick catch up. White wave you aren’t alone in feeling like weeping
Trisha, thanks for your contributions here.
Anyone who has worked with victims of sexual exploitation would be horrified by some posts here

Unfortunately ,very unfortunately, there are so many young folks that have never had the guidance or lifestyle that many of us take for granted ,the sort of guidance that enables us to take heed of the warning bells that some behaviours don’t add up & that we should not be too trusting .
At a certain young age we are all vulnerable ,but much more so for those who have already been exposed to behaviours that they have been led to believe are acceptable & normal’ whilst their inner selves are screaming out that it is not.

Short term not long term

People who are sexually abused learn to dissasociate to protect themselves. Their brains have very little reaction to what is happening to their bodies. They don't have the level of awareness that someone with a normal childhood would have, they do not have the means to protect themselves or leave the situation.

This comes back to haunt them in later life, it impacts their relationships how they deal with stressors and makes literal changes to the brain that can be seen on a brain scan.

People who have no experience of sexual abuse should look into research into the human mind and how easily it is programmed and conditioned to accept abuse. How the mind will shut down and freeze rather than fight and escape. How it will do what it has to do at the time to try to hide the person from the trauma they experience. How that only works in the long term and how much harm must be undone later in life.

Germanshepherdsmum

I can understand the law perfectly well Galaxy, but there are cases where a young girl who is of full mental capacity and fully understands what she is doing later uses the legal concept of consent for the purposes of financial gain.

My goodness- I never thought I would see such an opinion.

I could weep.

trisher

So you are effectively saying that 13 year olds can be bought GSM and that's OK? It's weird that a law which was actually brought in to prevent this happening to children is now considered unnecessary. Do you have an amount which you consider makes this acceptable? Or are poorer girls just going to be cheaper?
As for VG "living with her boyfriend at 13". She ran away from home was picked up by 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger and spent 6 months with him. He ran a model agency which was a front for sex trafficking. He now has convictions for alien smuggling for prostitution, interstate prostitution and money laundering. A perfect "boyfriend" for a 13 year old.

Go trisher go! This sums it up nicely. Funny how people forget that the females have and still continue to been treated poorly world wide. That slavery still exists. Anytime a young woman stands up for herself in a court of law she cannot count on the older women vote. Women should support their side even if they do not agree with the particulars of each case.

So you are effectively saying that 13 year olds can be bought GSM and that's OK? It's weird that a law which was actually brought in to prevent this happening to children is now considered unnecessary. Do you have an amount which you consider makes this acceptable? Or are poorer girls just going to be cheaper?
As for VG "living with her boyfriend at 13". She ran away from home was picked up by 65-year-old sex trafficker, Ron Eppinger and spent 6 months with him. He ran a model agency which was a front for sex trafficking. He now has convictions for alien smuggling for prostitution, interstate prostitution and money laundering. A perfect "boyfriend" for a 13 year old.

I can understand the law perfectly well Galaxy, but there are cases where a young girl who is of full mental capacity and fully understands what she is doing later uses the legal concept of consent for the purposes of financial gain.

No Lucca I have said I believe he lied, I accept the majority here will say if I believe he lied I must accept Giuffrie spoke the
truth and all that matters is her age.

She was of legal age.

It is obvious Andrew is guilty of sleeping with a 17 year old,
of being wealthy, of being a member of the royal family and his mother is defender of the faith.

Within the law she could not consent to that at 13. I dont know how you cant understand that.