Andrew 2

[treehugger]

For what it is worth, it is a bad look for the Royal family to be hanging out with Andrew because it seems to diminish the experiences of women everywhere who have been sexually abused. Especially for Will and Kate. Especially after the whole Sarah Everard thing, where Kate went to the vigil to show solidarity. 
 

I don’t, however think for half a second that they are ok with CSA. That is a whole different beast. And doesn’t really have anything at all to do with this. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by treehugger

[viii]

Both Josh and Andrew are sexual assaulters. Both Josh and Andrew were protected by their families. Both Josh and Andrew are disgusting and deserve the lowest seat in hell. We're allowed to snark about both of them, even if it's upsetting. That's the point, not the semantics about ages. Rape is rape. It's not a competition. I'm well aware that CSA is a whole different beast, but that's not the discussion at hand here, and it does Virginia no good to have people say, "Well, at least she wasn't 5". 

Virginia was raped, by Andrew, and now his family allows him to photographed in public royal events with them. That's the discussion. That's what we're allowed to snark on. 

[Coconut Flan]

Point of words have meaning.

Josh is a pedophile.

Quote

What is a Pedifile?

Pedophiles are adolescent boys or girls or adult men or women who feel sexually attracted to prepubescent children (i.e. those who have not yet reached puberty). Some pedophiles are attracted only to girls, others only to boys.

Bolding mine..

Andrew is more likely an ephobophile.

Quote

Ephebophilia is used only to describe the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. 

Not that it excuses anything.  But they are different things.

Both things are disgusting I feel I must add in the context of this discussion, but they are different.

 

[noseybutt]

I evaluate sex offenders as a part of my professional job.

Terms like hebephilia, ephebophilia, etc are not used either in legal or medical contexts.  We do use pedophilia as a diagnostic category, but less often than you might think because of details related to the diagnostic criteria. Including pedophilia in the DSM came with plenty of controversy because it was/is presented as an orientation. Clearly medical thinking on orientation has changed dramatically in the last 60 years. We tend to think of orientations as value-free, in and of themselves, but that's a lot to ask for pedophilia.

In legal world, desires and fantasies and orientations are not illegal; behavior is.  

I have no problem with people saying rape of a 5 year old is more morally repugnant than rape of a 17 year old. But that is moral judgement, and people can and do have different opinions on that. It is not medical or scientific judgement.

In terms of legal statutes, it varies by jurisdiction with most increasing penalties if under 14 (or 12 or 10).  Nobody is checking to see whether the victims went through puberty or not when charges are filed. The cutoff is by victim age, not stage of development. And the cutoff is largely determined by community standards (and moral judgements).

There are more nuances to all this but I will straight up admit that the moral issues can get complex real quick. For example, there is data that sex offenders who act out against underage boys are more likely to reoffend that those who act out against underage girls. So, from a risk assessment perspective, a case could be made that they should have longer sentences. But legal world is not just about risk and safety, it is primarily about justice. And, would sentencing offenders against girls for shorter terms than offenders against boys be just? 

I have not followed the Prince Andrew story in detail, but what little I do know, the possible sex-trafficking element is concerning. A 17 year old young woman who is being sex trafficked is not in the same position as a 17 year old young woman living her best life in a stable home. (Ironically, victims who are not sex-trafficked are often more likely to come to trial and result in harsher sentencing.) There are so many unknowns around Andrew, and I think that is much of the anger.

 

[viii]

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

Point of words have meaning.

Josh is a pedophile.

Bolding mine..

Andrew is more likely an ephobophile.

Not that it excuses anything.  But they are different things.

Both things are disgusting I feel I must add in the context of this discussion, but they are different.

 

Oh my god, nobody is arguing about the difference. We know the difference. 

[omilona]

Ok, maybe I’m the only one here with the actual experience. From the age of 12 onward I was serially sexually assaulted on a weekly basis  by the ever so fashionable adolescent psychologist in Scarsdale NY, who later lost his license for doing it to ALL the girls in the practice .  He got compliance from the girls by telling us if you dont lay down I will tell your parents you are insane and get you committed.This went on until I was 17 and blew out of the family home. In light of that, I will say that to me, VRG’s story does not hold water. In order for her to be able to travel the world she had to get a passport. Her parents both had to sign off on it as she was under 18. There is NOTHING in the world that could have induced me to ask my parents to get me a passport so I could travel with my abuser. Certainly the fact that it was during the school year would have given an instant out. The fact that the US attorneys declined to call her in the JE case, stating that she was an ‘unreliable witness’ and the fact that she has been WRONG on quite a few things like accusing Alan Dershowitz, and being drastically wrong on dates is quite concerning. The fact that she cannot produce the original of ‘that photo’, would make it inadmissible in any court as it could be tampered with. I’d like to point out that of the 3 times she claims she had sex with Andrew:  in NY the age of consent is now 17, but in  those days it was 14. In UK it is 16. In the USVI it is 17. She claims that the encounter with A in the USVI was a few days before she turned 17.  Which is what the entire thing hangs on. Andrew was never charged, let alone convicted. He fell on his sword to make the Queen’s Jubilee and dying years better. He has been loyal to the family, unlike Sparse and Molotov Mayhem.

Josh, on the either hand, has been tried and convicted of possessing the most disgusting child porn showing little babies being gang raped.. Maybe it’s me, but I dont consider them to be the same. JMHO.

[Jackie3]

I’m sorry for what happened to you.

But you are saying that a man who has sex with trafficked teen girls — whatever their age —is superior to a man who spoke his truth and is now living  peacefully with his family in California.  That is quite a leap. You are defending a man who had sex with trafficked girls

 

I do think Josh is far worse.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Jackie3

[Father Son Holy Goat]

1 hour ago, omilona said:

Ok, maybe I’m the only one here with the actual experience. 

I’m sorry for what happened to you. Sadly, you are not the only one here with actual experience. 
 

We don’t know how we would react in a given situation, you cannot judge someone because you think you know how’d you’d react. We don’t and can’t know what a person’s life experience is previous to that moment or how it has effected them. We don’t know their psychology, thoughts, or fears. I am sure every victim/survivor makes the best decisions they can with the knowledge and information they had at the time. 

[noseybutt]

IANAL but I thought what Andrew agreed not to deny was first and third degree rape, which would include force/coercion independent of age.

[viii]

I’m sorry for your experience but a) you’re not the only person here who has been sexually assaulted and b) it doesn’t make you an authority. 

It’s not your place to doubt Virginia’s story and I’m disgusted that you would. 

[Jackie3]

20 hours ago, omilona said:

Ok, maybe I’m the only one here with the actual experience.

 

Far from it! There are many victims of sexual abuse here . Few of them make excuses for Andrew, as you do.

Regardless of their ages, he had sex with trafficked teen girls. And he was close friends with a convicted sex offender.

How could that possibly be better than someone whose greatest crime, at worst, was “whining”?
 I’d expect a sex abuse survivor to view Andrew’s acts far more severely.

[klein_roeschen]

I first and foremost choose for myself to believe when someone tells they are the victim of abuse. Esp if it was during a time they where young. Epstein had a system installed to get new victims to supplement his wealthy and powerfull friends with. Friends like Andrew. And abusers know how to look for new victims. Like kids with a homelife where the parents/ guardians don't get suspicious when their kid isn't home for days, even weeks. And the passport is a non- issue. If they flew private they could have the plane full of girls without passports, because no one would have been waiting at the airport to check passports and visas. The "beauty" of having powerfull friends who can make calls so that their pall isn't checked by a lowly border control person.

[prayawaythefundie]

1 hour ago, klein_roeschen said:

I first and foremost choose for myself to believe when someone tells they are the victim of abuse. 

I do too but I‘m not the judge. There still is a difference between convicted or not as there is for all other crimes.

[Jackie3]

Looks like Andrew will get to stay at Royal Lodge. Charles really doesn't take Andrew's crimes very seriously. It's even OK for him to disrespect the Crown.

 

 

Charles hasn't hesitate to estrange himself from Harry.

Andrew pays only about $1200/month in rent for his 30 room mansion. (Commoners can't rent a bike in London for that amount.!)

https://www.thecut.com/2023/10/king-charles-prince-andrew-royal-lodge-house.html

Edited October 5, 2023 by Jackie3

[clueliss]

Struggling to find the Epstein thread so posting here.

They've ordered the unsealing of Epstein's papers.

https://www.threads.net/@abcnews/post/C1CvVjoJ6pa/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[TN-peach]

It will be interesting to see who else is in those papers. 

[rosamundi]

56 minutes ago, clueliss said:

Struggling to find the Epstein thread so posting here.

They've ordered the unsealing of Epstein's papers.

https://www.threads.net/@abcnews/post/C1CvVjoJ6pa/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

That'll be a test of whether Prince Andrew can still sweat, won't it?

[TN-peach]

5 hours ago, rosamundi said:

That'll be a test of whether Prince Andrew can still sweat, won't it?

I think there might be a lot of other people sweating out the news as well. 

[hoipolloi]

This Twitter thread (reposted by journalist Julie Brown, who did the original Miami Herald stories) goes over what might and probably won't be revealed:

 

[tabitha2]

Money talks and Bull shit walks. Too many corrupt degenerate politicians and Power players both Dem and Reps involved Not mention the A listers and CEO’s and Royals for any justice to happen. Most likely some small fry will be identified and prosecuted to make it look like justice is served.  

[klein_roeschen]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:36 PM, tabitha2 said:

Money talks and Bull shit walks. Too many corrupt degenerate politicians and Power players both Dem and Reps involved Not mention the A listers and CEO’s and Royals for any justice to happen. Most likely some small fry will be identified and prosecuted to make it look like justice is served.  

My cynical minds agrees with you. The higher up the food chain, the less likely they will get known for using Epstein's abuser service.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

There’s always the court of public opinion. 

[klein_roeschen]

6 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

There’s always the court of public opinion. 

 It sure is, but only for the men like politicians who need a favourable public opinion. The other ones, the ones in the shadow couldn't care less. And even if they are CEOs or something like that and their companies let them go because of the scandal, they get a golden handshake and "retire" and live like Andrew now, in luxurious privacy.

[Jackie3]

I can't believe people are pleased that Andrew and Fergie may reunited. Surely she can do better than a sex pest. From a health perspective, isn't she worried about STDs? Or will this be a platonic marriage?

I just don't understand what she will gain. A chance to walk along at path at Sandringham Xmas? 

I'd like to see Fergie find a kind, decent man to settle down with. 

Perhaps this is an attempt to rehab Andrew's imagine. But why would Fergie want to enter her senior years with a man she can't trust, and an institution that rejected her? It's just so bizarre. 

 

I really think Andrew should be extradited to face charges. Those poor girls he abused, it's sickening. And he was allowed to walk along the path toward church at xmas! This family doesn't know a bad optic when it sees one.

 

Apparently, there may be sex tapes of Prince Andrew having sex with minor girls. Sex tapes that "clearly identify" his face. 

Maybe it's not a good idea to give a kid everything, raise in him luxury, give him all sorts of unearned respect and admiration, have people cheer/bow at him for no reason, have little parental attention, and then give him nothing to do.

Some kids can survive that upbringing and become decent human beings, but most will not.

[tabitha2]

Sarah has now been diagnosed with Malignant  Melanoma. 
 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sarah-ferguson-diagnosed-aggressive-form-180749803.html

 

Edited January 21 by tabitha2