Devi
Well-known Member
- Location
- East WA USA
Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty of supplying girls for financier Jeffrey Epstein
- Thread starter Bretrick
- Start date
Just as a matter of the different ideas out there .... A professor at a university I am trying to find which one..... i believe it was in California
They suggest that Pedophiles have become a toxic word and some want to be referred to as M.A.P. or minor attracted person.
Yes that is how crazy discussions have become.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Those who are attracted sexually to young teens ( around the age of 14-15) rather than children are known as ephebophiles
Devi
Well-known Member
- Location
- East WA USA
I read that, too. Well, they can call it whatever they like, if they're so sensitive about it or don't like the public's vision of what they are. They're just trying to make it sound better than it is. They're still pedophiles.
Point taken, @hollydolly.
Last edited:
Tish
SF VIP
- Location
- Rural N.S.W. Australia
And now all the elite out there are shaking in their boots, there is no way she won't be dropping names to reduce her sentence.
Buckle up folks things are going to get very interesting and bumpy.
Buckle up folks things are going to get very interesting and bumpy.
Devi
Well-known Member
- Location
- East WA USA
I have to wonder — will she drop names to help herself, or will she not because dropping (big) names will bring threats to her?
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
I bluddy hope so
Being tried as an adult is very State specific, and not always the case.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
that's my opinion. I feel if she's to get a long sentence she will name names.. but if as I suspect.. she gets a short sentence of under 10 years and out in 1/2 of that or less she will protect her own life and the chance she might be the next to be bumped off.. by keeping her mouth firmly shut. However I don't doubt that word has already got to her to keep quiet or suffer the consequences
Alligatorob
SF VIP
I understand, and I do think there should be a difference between how we treat forced or coerced rape and consensual sex. The punishment for the first should be much harsher than the second. However I also believe there is some age below which even consensual sex with an older person should be prohibited. I don't believe young people, men or women, can make those decisions well. I am not sure what that age should be, outside of my expertise.
I know this more often involves a younger woman and an older man, but the other way round does happen. Both situations should be treated the same.
The issue of teenage murder is somewhat different. I do think youth should be taken into account in charging and sentencing. However so should the likelihood of the perpetrator doing it again. I believe society needs protection from likely repeat offenders, no matter the age.
The age for sexual consent in Britain is 16. In Denmark, it is 14. In many countries, it is age 15.
https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/france
We know a 17-year-old brought in her 14-year-old sister but was she a year older before she was deflowered?
I do not mean to defend sex trafficking, but if a citizen in Britain is involved does the US law apply to him?
By the way, does anyone remember the Disney movie Fantasia? It seems to sanction pedophilia.
What scenes are you referencing in Fantasia? Thanks.
Also, re: Prince A.
Didn't the event happen here in the U.S.? We have extradition treaties with Britain, and he is being accused criminally I think?
Sex with a teenager, particularly 17, is in no way pedophilia. I find when an important word is misused & abused it loses it's power. Words & their definitions are important, IMO
mellowyellow
Well-known Member
Hi Vida May,
In an interview Virginia Giuffre said “He is the most hideous dancer I've ever seen in my life. I mean it was horrible and this guy was sweating all over me, like his sweat was, like it was raining basically everywhere.”
https://filmdaily.co/news/jeffrey-epstein-island-secrets/
This link is an overview of the Island.... pictures included.
I was curious but island is part of the U.S. virgin islands. article say passports were confiscated ...but i am not sure you need a passport to go to a U.S. territory if a U.S. citizen at least.
From the article i guess boat or helicopter was only access.
This link is an overview of the Island.... pictures included.
I was curious but island is part of the U.S. virgin islands. article say passports were confiscated ...but i am not sure you need a passport to go to a U.S. territory if a U.S. citizen at least.
From the article i guess boat or helicopter was only access.
According to this the Prince has the opposite problem, hyperhidrosis.
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Legal documents Prince Andrew's lawyer believes will stop the civil sex lawsuit against him have been unsealed and made public.
Virginia Guiffre, also known as Roberts, is suing the 61-year-old royal for alleged sexual assault dating back to when she was a teenager.
But the Duke of York's lawyer Andrew B Brettler had argued the settlement agreement she entered into in 2009 with Andrew's pal and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would bring any dispute to an end.
The papers - made public today ( 3rd January 2022) by a New York court - state Ms Giuffre had agreed not to sue anyone connected to Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant" - though doesn't name the prince directly.
They reveal the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
And add such an agreement would "remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant from all, and all manner of action and actions of Virginia Roberts".
Mr Brettler had previously told the New York hearing the agreement "releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here".
US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, is due to hold a video teleconference on Tuesday when a request by the Duke's legal team to dismiss the case will be heard.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager - saying she had been trafficked.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-25840715
Virginia Guiffre, also known as Roberts, is suing the 61-year-old royal for alleged sexual assault dating back to when she was a teenager.
But the Duke of York's lawyer Andrew B Brettler had argued the settlement agreement she entered into in 2009 with Andrew's pal and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would bring any dispute to an end.
The papers - made public today ( 3rd January 2022) by a New York court - state Ms Giuffre had agreed not to sue anyone connected to Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant" - though doesn't name the prince directly.
They reveal the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
And add such an agreement would "remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant from all, and all manner of action and actions of Virginia Roberts".
Mr Brettler had previously told the New York hearing the agreement "releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here".
US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, is due to hold a video teleconference on Tuesday when a request by the Duke's legal team to dismiss the case will be heard.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager - saying she had been trafficked.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-25840715
Last edited:
I do not remember Fantasia that well, I just remember a friend and I were surprised. Vaguely I remember something like Pan beings chasing after what looked more like female girls than female women. It was not something that caught our attention before and we didn't think children would pick up on the sexual innuendo.
I agree there is a problem with saying sexual interest in a 17-year-old is pedophilia. Even by age 14 girls are coming into their sexuality. That is why it was custom to marry them off at age 14 in some rural areas where life was difficult. That is a totally different story but I mention it for perspective. An Oregon man interviewed pioneers and wrote a book. That is when I learned some of these women strongly resented the big fuss over slavery when their own slavery was ignored because we called it "marriage" when they were forced to marry an older man who wanted someone to clean and cook for him. I have known older women, who are long dead now, who hated their husbands and were very glad when their husbands died. The world was not always as it is today and marriage was not always about love. It was about survival and getting rid of the daughter before she got pregnant.
Thank you. I heard something about that in the news but my hearing isn't good enough so I didn't understand what was being said. I am seriously considering getting a hearing aid.Legal documents Prince Andrew's lawyer believes will stop the civil sex lawsuit against him have been unsealed and made public.
Virginia Guiffre, also known as Roberts, is suing the 61-year-old royal for alleged sexual assault dating back to when she was a teenager.
But the Duke of York's lawyer Andrew B Brettler had argued the settlement agreement she entered into in 2009 with Andrew's pal and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would bring any dispute to an end.
The papers - made public today ( 3rd January 2022) by a New York court - state Ms Giuffre had agreed not to sue anyone connected to Epstein who could be described as a "potential defendant" - though doesn't name the prince directly.
They reveal the financier paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim.
And add such an agreement would "remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge the said Second Parties and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant from all, and all manner of action and actions of Virginia Roberts".
Mr Brettler had previously told the New York hearing the agreement "releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here".
US District Judge Lewis A Kaplan, who is presiding over the civil case, is due to hold a video teleconference on Tuesday when a request by the Duke's legal team to dismiss the case will be heard.
Ms Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager - saying she had been trafficked.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-andrew-accuser-virginia-25840715
Oh, thank you! I have a strong curiosity and really wanted to know why sweat would have anything to do with anything. It seemed a really weird thing to talk about.
I looked up not being able to sweat and it is a real condition with several causes. Surely if he has the condition a medical record would clarify that point.
Thank you. I was curious about the island being under US jurisdiction or not.
Thank you for that clarification. As I already said, my hearing isn't good, so I am not understanding audio information very well.
Tish
SF VIP
- Location
- Rural N.S.W. Australia
I knew this would happen, and you can bet your bottom $$$ that she will start naming people.
Full Story
Ghislaine Maxwell lawyers will ask for a new trial after learning TWO jurors disclosed their history of sexual abuse during deliberations and 'helped convince other jury members to convict'
Full Story
RFW
Certified Night Owl
- Location
- United States
It's like they care so much that it hurts pedophiles' feelings when they themselves don't care one bit about the victims'.
Some people IMO are trying to normalize relationships with minors and most are not talking teens......
I often wondered if it is a person with no or low self esteem that in order to feel in interesting or in control they target children as age appropriate partners would find them immature and uninteresting intellectually.
The human brain does not fully develop until the mid 20's.
The term "underage" used in the context of this atrocious activity of adults manipulating young girls
and boys who have not yet gained the experience/ wisdom to "know better" is beyond despicable.
ANY person who puts their hands on and/ or coerces in ANY manner, forcing upon other persons who
do not fully understand their situation, those who are unable to give knowledgeable "consent";
should IMO, burn alive.
Victim shaming young women who became vulnerable to the promises of these monsters is unforgivably disgusting.
The "law" gives these young inexperienced and easily malleable children a "legal age" status prior to their developing
the ability to fully discern 'right from wrong'. sigh.
I really wish I'd not ventured into this area of the site. I discovered here that there are very few who grasp what is
truly happening with human trafficking and just how these CHILDREN are coerced into activities as the 'adults' will
dangle that proverbial "carrot" of being 'loved' (creating confusion between sex/ love), $, fame, fortune etc.,
manipulating these CHILDREN into doing things that are simply inexcusable.
Stating the victims could not really have been victimized because they were 'smiling' in pix??? smh.
It became apparent to me from reading this and the other thread about this trial that there are far too many
here that are so out of touch with reality on the issue of child abuse, child trafficking, cyclic narcissistic abuse
and all the numerous remaining aspects thereof. I find this thought process/ behavior, inexcusable.
Put down the news and volunteer at a local non profit for child trafficking... that'll maybe open your minds?
Stop for just a moment and consider: If these were your children at this age... how would you then 'think'
about child trafficking and victim shaming/ blaming?
Thank you folks for the enlightenment I've just gained here.
I am not willing to hang about with folks so far out of touch and exceedingly closed minded.
I will now, kindly show myself the door.
The term "underage" used in the context of this atrocious activity of adults manipulating young girls
and boys who have not yet gained the experience/ wisdom to "know better" is beyond despicable.
ANY person who puts their hands on and/ or coerces in ANY manner, forcing upon other persons who
do not fully understand their situation, those who are unable to give knowledgeable "consent";
should IMO, burn alive.
Victim shaming young women who became vulnerable to the promises of these monsters is unforgivably disgusting.
The "law" gives these young inexperienced and easily malleable children a "legal age" status prior to their developing
the ability to fully discern 'right from wrong'. sigh.
I really wish I'd not ventured into this area of the site. I discovered here that there are very few who grasp what is
truly happening with human trafficking and just how these CHILDREN are coerced into activities as the 'adults' will
dangle that proverbial "carrot" of being 'loved' (creating confusion between sex/ love), $, fame, fortune etc.,
manipulating these CHILDREN into doing things that are simply inexcusable.
Stating the victims could not really have been victimized because they were 'smiling' in pix??? smh.
It became apparent to me from reading this and the other thread about this trial that there are far too many
here that are so out of touch with reality on the issue of child abuse, child trafficking, cyclic narcissistic abuse
and all the numerous remaining aspects thereof. I find this thought process/ behavior, inexcusable.
Put down the news and volunteer at a local non profit for child trafficking... that'll maybe open your minds?
Stop for just a moment and consider: If these were your children at this age... how would you then 'think'
about child trafficking and victim shaming/ blaming?
Thank you folks for the enlightenment I've just gained here.
I am not willing to hang about with folks so far out of touch and exceedingly closed minded.
I will now, kindly show myself the door.