This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In today's "old man yelling at clouds" news, it appears that leftist memes (e.g. on imgur) have taken to calling Trump a pedophile due to his connection with Epstein.
As someone who does not give a damn about Trump, but who cares about the language we use to describe reality, I want to object.
A pedophile, in my book, is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Often, the term might imply exclusive pedophilia, e.g. someone who is only attracted to pre-pubescent kids. This seems like the worst sexual attraction card to be dealt, while being straight, gay, bisexual, into MILFs, or into BDSM, or most other kinks means you have a decent chance of getting laid, the lack of adults who could pass as pre-pubescent means that there are no sex partners who could consent. If used as an insult, the unfortunate implication is that people are morally responsible for their sexual inclinations.
Naturally, there is an overlap with people who end up molesting children, which is rightfully considered a serious crime. It bears saying that a significant fraction of child molesters are not exclusive pedophiles but just men (mostly) with broader sexualities who use the opportunity of the power discrepancy between kids and adults.
In general, I think that power discrepancy is why we have age of consent laws. Using the age is obviously a crude approximation, I can think of situations where a 15yo having sex with an 18yo would not be problematic from a power discrepancy point of view, and also of situations where two 18yo having sex would be problematic from a power discrepancy view without being criminal. But still, one has to draw the line somewhere, and age is at least something which can reasonably be verified, while "would a judge like the power dynamics in that relationship?" is much more diffuse.
If we tie consent to age, then it makes sense to dis-emphasize physical development. After all, a woman consents with her brain, not her boobs. It might certainly make a difference if the defendant claims he was mistaken about her age or that she was the one who initiated sex (not that either defense would help much, likely).
To get back to Trump, I think it is pretty clear that he is not an exclusive pedophile. That guy paid for sex with Stormy Daniels, hosted beauty pageants and boasted about grabbing post-pubescent participants "by the pussy". Based on the women he married, "small and flat-chested" does not really seem to be his type.
He is also a sex pest. I can not imagine him going "Dear Jeffrey, this is very flattering, but I do not think it is appropriate. Look at that poor girl. She is a minor who possibly did not have a clear idea that she would be expected to do sex work here and is effectively trapped alone on an island with some very powerful people. Besides her being below the age of consent, this whole setting is intrinsically coercive. If you want me to fuck someone, please get an experienced sex worker of legal age for my next visit." Instead, he probably went "great, I will take the one with the bigger tits" and committed a particularly vile act of statutory rape.
From a culture war point of view, I can see why the left is pushing the pedo angle. It basically comes from qanon, where "oh, did I mention they also rape kids" was used as a boo light to drive home the fact that these were Bad people. MAGA pattern-matched Epstein to this, which was fair enough. Now that it looks like Trump might have been a visitor to Epstein's Island, the likely factually accurate claim "Trump is a sex pest who has no conception of consent and will happily commit statutory rape" is not going to do much damage. The American people have known that he is a sex pest with no conception of consent since 2016, and in their heart of hearts they also know that someone who is generally loose on consent will also not be a stickler for the rules as far as age of consent is concerned. By contrast, going "that pedophile world-controlling elite you were always talking about? Trump is their chairman!", or more shortly "Trump is pedophile" is obviously superior as an attack in the CW.
Still, a lot of epistemic commons are burned in the process, and I really don't like that.
Not sure which comic said a joke to the tune of - pedophilia is liking kids, ephebophilia is liking underage, the problem is you can't explain the difference without sounding like a pedophile.
Since pedophilia is the last standing hard taboo in the society, there is a incentive to push it's boundaries ever higher. Because the other sticks just got softer - no one is scared of being caller racist, sexist or phobic anymore. To the point where some fringe activists include even persons above 18 to it. Which will lead of course to dilution, people discarding accusation more easily and give the Jimmy Savile's and Epstein's even more freedom. But this will be in 10 years.
His name is gianmarco soresi. You can see the joke here https://youtube.com/watch?v=nu6C2KL_S9o
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Americans conflating ephebophilia or simple assholery with pedophilia is nothing new. It's standard and widely made fun out of, spawning several memes..
Compared to what went on before - e.g. transgender self-id, male pregnancy etc.. I don't find this newest, frankly pathetic attempt meaningful or even very aggravating. It's just what the post-tumblr left does. Back before it's brain was melted by lack of talent and internet, they just played games with language.
Now, the games are stupid, nobody who isn't a tumblr-type person can take it seriously and they keep engaging in circular firing squads.
Not sure this is going to influence anyone - people who already believed Trump is a philandering stupid bald nazi clown etc.. he's already maximally bad in their eyes. Everyone else has tuned out their yammering and they no longer have much of a megaphone to command with the decline in TV viewership.
IME it is influencing some people — primarily elderly Boomers who still watch TV (particularly Fox News). That, and some of the "global satanic-Jewish-pedo conspiracy" Q-anon types a la Vox Day.
I think it was... Nate Silver who posted that it doesn't seem it's hurting him at the polls. Vox Day and such are very special people who aren't that interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your book is not the book most people are using. Most people don't think about sex in those terms (they don't really think 'straight' or 'gay' either)- otherwise, the group(s) that wants to impose those definitions/morality on everyone else wouldn't need words words words to do it.
For most people, "pedophilia" means "man on little girl" exclusively.
Men can't be raped, so we don't really care about man on boy (unless it's a political group we hate for other reasons that was covering it up, which in combination with that hatred is sufficiently scandalous to destroy them- we're not really after boyfuckers qua boyfuckers, that's a side-effect). As for woman on boy, our reactions range from Nice to "if we don't throw you in jail for this, society's standards might shift and allow man on girl, so off you go". And woman on girl is a statistical anomaly.
Feminists/gynosupremacists launder the moral disgust with "man on girl" into the "man on any woman" definition they've always wanted (though note that this is fundamentally a woman vs. woman thing about how best to exploit men rather than primarily being man-hating, which is how men perceive it). This is why they push to have older and older women be considered "children", and why white-knights (traditionalists and progressive men) accept that. It's also why all the "pedo" literature progressives use only features man on boy (or man on boy-dressed-like-a-girl).
As you noted,
is correct, but those laws aren't set up that way to protect children (they aren't the right tool for that). They're primarily for keeping young women out of the sexual marketplace and providing women-as-class a weapon to exploit men more powerful than them (to which they are inherently attracted).
Once you understand the concept of "consent" is a lie (and intended to confuse "raping little girls" with normal human behavior) you can start to understand how people actually think about sex. Then, you can also see that Rs have a better understanding of this than Ds do because they're more likely to reject this framework (to the point that even traditionalist Christian sexual ethics paint a better picture), so Rs are less likely to be concerned with "non-consentual" behavior than Ds are.
Also, a tangent:
Well, if you're only looking for physical penetration as a subset of "abuse with sexual intent", yes, you'll find that's mostly men.
Men and women are different especially when it comes to the way they think about sex; thus we should expect the ways they intend and perpetrate sexual abuse would be different.
I disagree, I think that age of consent laws are mostly doing their job well enough.
The thing which horrifies me about ancient marriages was the power imbalance. In Rome, the wife was not even a separate legal entity, she was just a part of the household (which was the legal entity), represented by the husband. From my understanding, it was not so much that the husband had an explicit right to beat or rape his wife, and more that what went on within a household was simply not a matter for Roman law. Outright murder or maiming of the wife might get the husband into trouble with the father of his wife, but anything short of that would probably be tolerated. In that setting, the power imbalance is already over-determined. If a 32yo veteran marries a 13yo instead of a 20yo, this would also on its own determine the power imbalance, but given the context we are already way into diminishing returns wrt power imbalance.
As one of these bleeding-heart liberals, I have this idea that power imbalances in sexual relationships which do not stem from a sufficiently informed consent are bad.
If a 30yo is grooming 13yo's, he will probably succeed with a decent fraction of them, if he is average-looking, average-income and has an average skill at manipulation. "No, he is not some creep who wants to fuck 13yo's, he just recognized that mentally I am already 18 and our souls fell in love with each other. It is so romantic!"
With child marriages, at least there is a sharp limit on how many girls a bad actor can victimize (though the magnitude of victimization per victim is of course much higher). With Westerner morals around dating, our average adult man could probably seduce, fuck and dump several 13yo per year if that was his hobby. Now learning the hard way that men will sometimes talk about being soulmates to manipulate you into doing sex acts you would not do otherwise and then display no inclination towards an exclusive romantic relationship is not the end of the world (unless you kill yourself over that), but it is clearly making the world a worse place.
If we had headbands of WIS+6, INT+6 that would probably suffice to cancel out the power imbalance due to the 13-vs-30 age gap, but without that tech having an AoC seems like a good idea.
Or if that is not convincing for you, consider the AoC not in the context of a 13yo, but a 5yo. Adults are great at manipulating kids into doing stuff they have no inclination to do, from eating spinach and getting poked with needles to sitting still in school and doing homework. Child molesters could easily manipulate kids into all kinds of behaviors which will be demonstrably harmful for their normal development. With AoC, we can simply say "well, the kid may have consented, but their consent was invalid, so off to prison you go".
I am sure that there are some adult women who wish that they had lost their virginity at age 14 to a 40yo driving a Porsche instead of a 15yo driving a scooter, but I am also convinced that they are a small minority.
If we generously say that half of the men who groom underage girls (if it was legalized) are interested in a exclusive long term relationship, and half of them are interested in sex without having to work as much on a relationship framework as they would when dating an adult woman, then most girls will end up dating the latter type.
I do not think that the motivation of fathers and feminists to be against minors dating adults is that they fear that they will ruin the sexual marketplace for women. Few fathers will say "I don't want my 13yo to date adult men because she does not know the proper price range of sexual favors and will happily give them blowjobs after getting invited to the cinema". More likely it is something like "I do not want some creep to use his power to manipulate my daughter into doing sex acts she is not comfortable doing and then break her heart. I will grudgingly tolerate her dating a boy a few years older, as at least the boy will not have a ten year head start on how to manipulate woman into sex."
Yes, the conditions in the state of nature are indeed horrifying. I wonder if the past 200,000+ years of human evolution had anything to do with the incentives, motives, and options typically leveraged by its participants? Surely modern peoples are trained to understand those core motivations, and are honest about them, at all times, and not forming their basis of what is and is not good and proper based solely around purely instinctual self-interest. (Now if you'll excuse me, a pig just flew past my window.)
So I think we can get a better picture- both of what's fair, and by how men and women should act and be biologically wired to be attracted to- by imagining our initial conditions and going forward solely from there.
And in the state of nature case, for women, power is "you get to eat, have a roof over your head, and strike the best deal for resource sharing", and consent is "you enter into a relationship that provides the above provided you cook the meals, maintain the household, and open your legs as desired".
Informed consent is "if you don't, you'll die, or take a serious haircut on your lifetime earnings and potential standard of living". From a modern lens, that seems unbalanced, until you notice that men die if they don't work too. Sexual dimorphism means that men have to contend with the environment to eat, and women have to contend with men to eat- in both cases, of course, you're still working.
Now that we've described the contract- one that inherently includes sex work, it's worth noting- now we'll look at the incentives. For men, they want someone as young and attractive as possible (they heal faster from childbirth and it's easier for them to have kids, sex is better without having to turn the lights off) at as low a standard as possible (so they can get away with paying them next to nothing compared to themselves, to the point they could afford more than one). For women, they want someone as old and powerful as possible (more secure, more resources, more even-keeled) with as little competition as possible (so they're not outflanked by younger, prettier competitors with lower standards[1]).
The thing that sets the lower limit on the age of the women participating in this, especially when there's an oversupply of them[2], is sexual maturity. It may shock you to know that most men aren't sexually attracted to little girls[3]. They can't do the domestic stuff as easily, they aren't developed enough/don't have the v1.1 firmware update you get at puberty that makes them particularly interesting in bed, and they don't quite get how to provide the whole SaaS (that's sex-as-a-service) experience that is attractive to men (that thing they do where they act as a desirable sex object: women do this, girls only cosplay it)- in short, they're still growing.
Now, let's apply that:
So those are the words that come out of her mouth, but what is she actually saying? A steady union-backed job is absolutely an attractive, freeing prospect for a man, why wouldn't [something a woman instinctively sees as the same thing] be highly desirable for a woman? I can see an interview process going badly, or the job not turning out to be what was agreed to, to be damaging just as much as it would be for a man to suffer that- but in terms of "my prospective employer firing me or discontinuing my contract", which is what [at a fundamental level] this is, I see no need to protect women from this more than we protect men from the same. Residuals (i.e. pregnancy) are a different matter, of course.
Yes, that's the female interest motte (but, again, see [3]). The bailey is "men could easily manipulate women into all kinds of behaviors, and as a result the only women who will get men's resources are those more willing to do things that men want, and that's a problem for us women who don't want to do those things but still want those resources". (The fact that this slots women into the "kid" position is relevant- in an environment of equality, women have equal agency, so they're just as resistant to being manipulated as men are.)
As far as "well, we want a blanket law because we don't want to pay attention to circumstances"... I think the criticism writes itself, but other laws, properly enforced, should cover most to all of these cases. The thing that makes this abuse in the first place is specifically "submissive has no ability to disengage" [the motte of the term "consent"- where the bailey is any degree of "I'm not getting paid enough for those acts of submission"], which is the same thing women are trying to control with blunt instruments like this (and it is important they be blunt so that judgments default in their favor- an age of consent is intended as a bracket under which All Women Are Believed [to have been seduced], which is why places where either women or fathers have outsized levels of social power have higher ages of consent in modern times.)
[1] The female talking point around "protecting women" is equal to the male talking point around "protecting the borders/protecting jobs". In both cases, their direct competition are other men/women willing and ready to take their job- we use words like "exploitation", "minimum wage", "human trafficking/illegal immigration" (when those people are foreigners)- it's just that for women, the job is sex work and being attractive.
[2] Which is the reason polygamy exists, why limits on it benefit young men at the expense of everyone else, and why young men are alone in enforcing any prohibitions thereon- if sharing a husband will be a better contract for a wife than going with someone poorer, and if young men are drastically poorer than old men, then the rational choice for a women is to share.
[3] As I've described, it's in the interest of women to conflate "grown women just beyond the male evolved optimal sexual attraction age" and "sexually immature girls", so this needs to be restated even though it should be obvious. Actual pedophilia is a maladaptive anomaly, men wanting just-mature women is not.
And I get this idea from the
pornographyromance media that women watch where it involves a complete lack of "sufficiently informed consent" (but lots and lots of the instinctual dynamics I described above), so I suspect women are lying about this being a negative in and of itself. I'm also not surprised they'd never admit that, because screaming "I don't want a consentual relationship" is obviously not in women's sociofinancial/sociobiological best interest.I am not convinced: groupies are a thing for this specific reason and the 60s-80s were rife with them for that reason. (What, you thought women throwing their underwear at Elvis was somehow not sexual?)
I do not think the motivation of (implied: traditionalist) fathers and feminists are the same. I've discussed why feminists do it, but for fathers it's much simpler: that daughter is his property, and he will manage and discharge it as he sees fit. Non-virgin daughters are worth less to men than virgin ones are, and it is in the father's interest that the daughter fetch a man of maximum price (i.e. a man that is maximally fit to protect her, and a rich man is obviously better-positioned to do this).
Note that the moral hazard here doesn't actually exist in the way feminists think it does (property can be managed incompetently, yes, but it's still ultimately in the interests of the property holder to manage that property appropriately), and most of that is an artifact of conditions changing faster than male instinct was equipped to deal with. Which is a great argument for "daughters shouldn't be property", just like it is for humans more generally.
If I understand your sarcasm right, this seems like a fully generalizeable counterargument to most human progress. If you want to argue "back in the ancestral environment we (likely) did not have a conception of sexual consent, so I do not see why we need one now", the same argument could be made against other civilizational projects like trying to limit the murder rate, curing diseases or preventing starvation.
I think that both in the ancestral environment and agrarian societies, age (above 20) was directly negative in a husband, but sometimes positively correlated with beneficial qualities.
Evolutionarily speaking, if you are a 14 and looking to marry, you perhaps have 15, 20 years of fertility ahead of you. Sure, there is some heavy discounting because chances are that you will die in childbirth or some unrelated cause before you reach age 30. Any children you have will be a net drain on resources until they are perhaps 14 (when they will either be in the position to sell themselves into sexual/domestic/reproductive bondage or work to produce their own calories). If your expected age at the birth of your last child is 25, that means you would want your husband to provide for your family until you are about 40 (or possibly 50 if you are really lucky wrt fertility).
That is a tall order in the best of circumstances! If the husband you marry is 20, he would have to be able-bodied at age 46. If he is 35, he would have to be able-bodied at age 61.
Now, I will grant you that in the ancestral environment, humans might not have had a conception of fatherhood, or long-term monogamous mating patterns, so let us consider agrarian societies instead, where both of these were generally a thing. (Absent paternal involvement, the trade-offs for age in mating are that on the one hand, paternal age is indicative of a higher genetic fitness, but also will increase the mutational load.)
In an agrarian society, almost everyone is a peasant. Most girls will not marry some noble land-owner. Working marginal fields is back-breaking labor, my guess is that most men give out before 40. What happens then is very dependent on the customs of the society. In the best case, your husband dies quickly and you inherit his land and can marry some landless 20yo who will be happy to breed you for the rest of your fertility window. In most cases, this is not how societies organize. The realistic best outcome is that your husband had a younger, landless, unmarried brother who will just take both the land and you over for him, but more realistically, he will inherit the land and marry a fresh 14yo. He might keep you around and feed you and your kids while times are good, but if he has to chose between his wife and his kids and you and his nephews, things will look grim for you. Realistically, the land might never have belonged to your husband in the first place, but just been leased out from a local noble, who will simply proceed to lease the land to some other guy once your husband fails.
Obviously, if you can become the nth wife of some guy rich enough that he does not have to work the field, that would be preferable from an evo PoV, but realistically that is not an option most girls have.
In conclusion, from evo, you would want to go for a rich man if you can, but settle for a young, strong man if you can't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
clarify, please
Sure, here you go. You'll have to excuse me from re-typing all that, though if I have time I'll re-state a good chunk of this later in this thread anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The left finally learned how to meme I guess. Is this the source of the latest round? All I hear is it being spun as "Trump mad that Epstein was stealing
underage sex workersteenage employees from his resort" With lots of dark hinting about why Trump would hire teenagers in the first place. Fucking pervert.And I'm sitting here, feeling the class divide between reporters and everyone else more starkly than ever. I think it was Matt Taibbi who was talking about how reporters used to be a blue collar profession, but they've been increasingly infiltrated and gentrified by ivy league grads. And if this has any validity at all, it comes out here. The people reporting on this are a class of human being with no concept of a highschool summer job. That's what illegals are for. The idea that teenagers are in the service industry is on the face of it suspicious to them. Or that teenage girls (attractive ones to boot) would be in "front of house" positions. I was going to say something like "Has the world really changed that much since I was a teenager?" except all this shit would have happened when I was a teenager so I feel I can speak on it with more authority.
Ah well, I guess you had to be there. A shame these people get to write the first draft of history.
More options
Context Copy link
The "Trump is a paedophile" stuff is fitting in with the "Trump is a rapist" stuff. People who hate him and are dazzled by the whole "they're going to throw the gays into concentration camps and shoot all the brown and black people and force women to be pregnant every year of their lives" material are just going "well of course he's a rapist, of course he raped thirteen year olds, look at this very credible case of an accuser we should all believe" (I've seen the Jane Doe/Katie Johnson story floating around again recently online years after even the journalists who wanted this humdinger of a story to be true dropped it) because they so desperately want it to be true. Cue relevant C.S. Lewis quote here:
More options
Context Copy link
I think the entire game here is so obvious that it’s actually getting frustrating to me to even read people talk about this.
Epstein was an Israeli intelligence asset. This should be as obvious as saying that the four legged furry animal that barks at the mailman, chase tennis balls, that lives in my house, and had two parents who were both dogs, is, in fact, a dog.
It should not be lost that this entire Epstein stuff made a 180 pivot about three days before The United States was needed to clean up yet another of Israel’s messes by bombing Iran.
Trump is also just obviously not a pedophile or whatever other cope term that Redditors from 15 years ago were using to justify their creepy interest in teenagers.
Jeffrey Epstein was a NYC and Palm Beach socialite at the same time as Trump. Yeah they shared a plane a few times, were at some of the same parties, and had some social overlap.
The people trying to tie this into the same vein as Clinton or Gates, who appear to have flown to Epsteins private properties a bunch of times and do seem to have creepy sexual interests are being obtuse.
This whole topic is so tired. It has been beaten to absolute death.
If you want an incredibly detailed and well sourced deep dive on this topic which also goes into pedophilic tendencies of the people around the levers of American Democrat power, then here is a podcast which does that:
https://www.martyrmade.com/featured-podcasts/the-jeffrey-epstein-series/ L
He may have been an asset (and probably was), but the controversial claim being made here is more than that. If Epstein was entrapping and blackmailing people like Clinton, Trump and Prince Andrew on behalf of Mossad, then he was a Mossad agent and the people he was blackmailing were assets. And at most intelligence agencies, including the CIA and MI6, Epstein would fail the character and loyalty tests to be recruited as an agent. You don't want someone who might predictably find themselves in a position where they are tempted to blab in exchange for a reduced sentence knowing the things Epstein would need to know to do the job of Mossad blackmailer-in-chief.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have any evidence to support this? All I've really seen is a bunch of sus shit that could easily be alternatively explained as "person with a lot of connections has a lot of connections" and sensible counter arguments like "the first rule of spy club is don't tell random people you are a spy..."
I don't think it is as clear as you think it is or alternatively - it is very scissorish.
You can’t prove that the mob killed Jimmy Hoffa either. Sure he had been in bed with the mob for years, had recently pissed them off, and disappeared on his way to meet with a high ranking mobster. But there’s no smoking gun, no witness testimony, no body. Shockingly enough the organization of professional murderers that specialize in getting away with murders made sure there wasn’t any definitive iron clad evidence of the murder.
You've got alternative possible explanations for Epstein - legitimately it seems like he would commit suicide, he might have bribed others to allow it, this guy bragged about being a spy which isn't really something most spies do and so on.
I don't know enough about Hoffa but I doubt we have other significant ideas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can I prove that my dog is a dog? Can you prove that Robert Maxwell was an Israeli intelligence asset?
Listen to the podcast I linked. It’s a 6 hour long answer to your question.
I listened to Carlson's interview with MM and I remember MM making a claim that Epstein was more of a freelancer. Surely at times he worked for Israel and other western services , but mostly he was in it for himself and for profit - and what he did was help with tax evasion using shady financial means, steal from his clients - more for the love of the game than actual need and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not going to listen to a six hour long podcast, if their is any evidence that isn't circumstantial and isn't just "that sounds weird" feel free to send it along.
But my point is that it isn't reasonable to think some of that kinda business was going down, it's that it's also perfect reasonable to be unconvinced.
Almost every conspiracy theory that turns out to be true was also widely known in the relevant communities just underreported (ex: Weinstein being a sex pest).
This matches more to conspiracy theories that turn out to be untrue.
The same was true of Jimmy Saville:
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/36483/revealed_the_one_line_the_bbc_censored_from_the_thick_of_it
Everybody in TV knew. And were performatively shocked later on, of course.
IIRC John Lydon of the Sex Pistols fame was making noises about this open secret in 1978.
Sure enough.
More options
Context Copy link
Eeesh
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right most people know "open secrets" in their community or profession. Sometimes they get picked up by the public, sometimes they don't, but conspiracy theories that actually come out are almost always in this category.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, second thread of thought, separate from the Trump issue below:
I'm never a fan of the 'power discrepancy' argument since 'power' is usually very hard to define in tangible terms. We know it when we see it, sure, but it comes in different forms. The person who holds financial power might not be the 'more powerful' person in a confrontation where the other party holds... a gun.
"Coercion" is a more tightly defined, and the law has pretty decent standards for recognizing where coercion has occurred. Power can be used to coerce, but it can also be used to 'persuade' in the literal "convince someone that it is good/right for them do to the thing" definition.
Should we differentiate between a rich/powerful guy saying "If you don't sleep with me I will make your life a living hell" vs. saying "If you sleep with me I'll give you a ride in my private jet"? Probably. Either one is the result of a 'power' imbalance.
And, finally, the existence of statutory rape laws can, arguably, invert that power dynamic, rather than eliminate it! A particularly sociopathic 15-17 year old can tell someone slightly older than themselves "Sleep with me/give me money or I will tell the cops you raped me."
I don't think that's a common situation, but you see the point, if we're worried about power imbalances it doesn't do to just hand more power to the alleged less powerful person in this situation.
What's my solution? Bring back literal rites of passage rather than tying things to a strict age-based formula.
Philosophically and psychologically, 'consent' is based on state of mind and understanding of the acts in question, age is only very loosely correlated with those factors. And we have the ability to measure those factors more directly. So why use the less reliable metric that is constantly being gamed anyway.
So I see the "what should age of consent be?" debates as a massive red herring. Understandable one since its the standard in place now. Yet everyone has secondary motives for what they'd prefer the age be. And there legitimately is NOT some 'one size fits all' answer!!
Just cut through that stupid knot and tie legal adulthood to some test or other obstacle that a young person must clear before they're recognized as full adults. Some will pass the test at age 15, some at 18, some at 25, and some never at all.
If you're going to consider "coersion" and power dynamics in this context, the question of whether an intern (age 22) can consent to "sexual relations" (depending on the meaning of the word "is") with the de facto Leader of the Free World is going to come up at some point. And I don't think it's a question either side really wants to dig up and grapple with deep down: Clinton mostly won the issue, but modern leftist views on the issue look a lot more like Republicans in the '90s than either side would care to admit.
While I agree that it's out of the Overton Window of what I expect to appear in the pages of the Huff Post or NYT, "Bill Clinton is a rapist" is something that is commonly stated on /r/politics (in the context of the right countering claims against Trump by bringing up Bill Clinton), and I'd be astonished if any millennial or younger person I knew would disagree.
Monica Lewinsky unambiguously consented, and was over age. (I don't think that excuses Clinton's behaviour - I think supervisor-subordinate sex in the workplace is almost always wrong, and banworthy, and I separately think that thou shalt not commit adultery.) She wasn't the plaintiff and only became the centre of the scandal because she was the woman who retained evidence that could prove Clinton committed perjury. Some of the other women didn't consent.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, ‘bill Clinton treats young women like he’s bill Cosby’ seems like common, barely even denied knowledge on the progressive left. Few will bring it up, even if trying to laundry list powerful men getting away with it, despite being a much more central example than most of those they will bring up.
More options
Context Copy link
The history of "credible accusations" against Bill Clinton has been noted for a long time, as has the long history of influential democrats running interference for him and attacking his accusers, starting with his wife. Around 2020 or so, the dissonance was bad enough, and the Clintons declined enough in influence, for a few prominent Blues to tentatively begin asking the uncomfortable questions out loud. A cynical person would note that this was only after the Clinton political machine had well and truly collapsed, but still, one might plausibly argue better late than never.
And yet in 2024, he was back to headlined the DNC during a national election.
Likewise, the "credible accusation" of rape against Biden turned out not to be quite credible enough.
I've talked a few times about topics where there's not much left to say, where the entire conversation is essentially pre-scripted from the start, and there's no real room for charity any more. This seems to me to be a good example of the type.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asserting that popular opinion among younger people is that Bill Clinton raped some unnamed woman. I'm asserting that there's a significant portion of younger people on the left who would be straight-up confused by the question because his relationship with an intern is undisputed and that's obviously one where there couldn't have been meaningful consent according to their modern sexual mores (and this opinion is frequently expressed in /r/politics threads about Epstein). Since millennials are young enough that they couldn't have voted for Bill Clinton, they're a lot more willing to throw him under the bus than the older Democrats who actually control the DNC.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Surely a 90s Republican didn't think Clinton's targets were unable to consent. Rather they thought his affairs were gross, adulterous and disqualifying.
No, ‘your intern deserves protections from being asked to have an affair with you’ is something that modern neo-morality and tradcon morality would agree on, although they would phrase it differently. Modern neo-morality is all about trying to find ways in which consent isn’t really consent when the tradcons would disapprove, because consent is a woefully insufficient standard.
The moral majority probably wouldn’t have seen it as wrong for a boss to date his intern/employee if he was single. But the idea that an extramarital affair is much worse if it’s with your employee, or with an impressionable teenager, is pretty core to moral majority views about sex.
Maybe but I definitely remember Lewinsky being villified across the political spectrum, which wouldn't make much sense if she was viewed as a a non-consenting victim by either side. Here's one example from a republican rabbi, as I remember it there was a lot of this sort of thing around: https://observer.com/2014/05/monica-should-apologize-to-hillary/
Yes, two people can both be wrong in this framework- unlike the neo-morality view that there is a victim and an oppressor.
Under classical morality, Clinton is a cad and a rake and Lewinsky is a slut and a home-wrecker.
Under classical morality, most sex is illicit, and most illicit sex has two perpetrators - rape stricto sensu is the rare case where one partner is wholly innocent because she didn't consent, not something that is only illicit because of the lack of consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The nineties was a wild time but it was widely recognized that supervisors fuck their underlings was coercion. The Republicans had nearly used expulsion to remove a sitting US Republican senator at the beginning of Clinton's 1st term.
More options
Context Copy link
Plenty of contemporary commentary, admittedly not all from conservative partisans, used the phrase "taking advantage", which IMO is at least suggestive of the question, but not directly implying non-consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its complicated by the fact that women are attracted to power, so where I'd never characterize the leader of the free world as a victim, and Clinton in particular is obviously a horndog, an intern can still throw off tons of 'hints' that she's down to clown b/c the mere fact of having access to a powerful man can be enough to 'persuade' her to sleep with him.
Thinking about the Pence/Billy Graham Rule for avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Avoiding the creation of these power imbalance situations is much simpler than trying to remove power imbalances.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So basically, maturity. That’s what I think at least you and I agree is more accurate than power in terms of what’s ickier. An immature child really doesn’t fully understand decision making, and sex is a big thing. An immature child is more persuadable and doesn’t have as firm boundaries. An immature child is more likely to have their sexual development harmed by unhealthy dynamics or acts. (And by the way most states already have a patchwork of laws and norms of enforcement that cover the gradients in age with some granularity, though it can be jagged in some areas).
But if you want something other than age, which is a good proxy for maturity but not perfect, I think it’s incumbent upon you to provide some test of maturity that would work. I am not sure I could think of one. Most historical rituals I’m aware of were in fact age based and were more symbolic in many cases than practical. EDIT: strike this paragraph. I didn’t check the link, looks like you have played with it a bit. But I will still say that historical precedent doesn’t seem that helpful.
Bingo.
Double bingo. A person that doesn't fully grok that sex makes babies, what STDs are, and the other more subtle risks to intercourse with another person is, definitionally, less capable of consenting to it.
Of course, this puts the onus on the MORE MATURE person to NOT initiate the sexual relationship when they realize the other side isn't really ready.
I would be fine with a test in the same vein as that given to teens who want to get their driver's license.
A comprehensive exam that tests, for example, if a person REALLY understands the implications of a sexual relationship. Not on like a deep scientific level, mind, but at least the "ins and outs" (pun intended).
This means that young people can in fact study and prepare for the test, which is a GOOD THING, since it encourages them to learn the necessary information that will prepare them for adulthood. I would also include testing for, say, contractual rights. Maybe someone can't be give student loans unless they can prove they know how compound interest works!
Of course we'd have to have significant anti-cheat measures in place. Which is why I really would prefer there to be some 'objective' "test of willpower" element involved. If you force them to endure some sort of uncomfortable experience without giving in to temptation or dropping out before the finish, its MUCH harder to rig the system.
Yes, this could be the literal equivalent of The Gom Jabbar (but with less severe consequences). If you can't endure a couple minutes of excruciating (but not injurious) pain... I DARESAY you probably aren't 'mature' enough to handle real life. Note that this is LITERALLY how some traditional tribes do it.
I would like to couple that with a requirement that someone, ideally their parents, sponsor them for the test, in the sense that they're affirming "yes, this person is ready for adulthood, and if they screw up I am prepared to help accept the consequences for promoting them too early." So for the next, I dunno, 3 years if they screw up somehow the sponsor is also on the hook for helping fix it.
I do not believe emulating African tribes is a good idea when it comes to maturity rituals, either with this or your idea from the other post about getting beaten up by 10 guys in a row. Firstly, it doesn't seem correct to me that a ghetto thug should be ahead of a glass-jaw nerd on any maturity test in a first-world country (even if the thug is objectively more "fit" for life, the status is wasted on him). Secondly, immediate pain is not a well-optimized maturity test for a first-world country regardless. What brings prosperity in first-world countries is long-term thinking and the ability to lock in over months and years. Not enduring physical pain for half an hour.
Even if Gom Jabbar tests a necessary quality it is far from sufficient.
Fine, include a version of The Marshmallow Test if you want!
There's a plethora of ways to measure a person's understanding of the world and their ability to endure discomfort for future gain.
Under the current regime, the ghetto thug AND the glass-jaw nerd are granted "adulthood" status with all rights that entails by the mere fact of turning eighteen. Do we think this is optimal?
People generally accept that taking a driver's test and passing some arbtitrary standard is enough to get the stamp of approval to operate a 5000 lb vehicle on public streets. I'm mostly suggesting just an expansion of the existing system there.
Under my ideal system, too, anyone is free to transact with a non-adult, but they bear ANY losses that may result if the other non-adult party reneges.
If, for instance, you give $100k in student loans to an 18 y/o who hasn't passed the maturity tests, and they default on them years later, they can't be forced to repay because from a contractual standpoint, they lacked the ability to consent. So they can have the debt dismissed if the lender is stupid enough to give them money.
In modern urban society, the fundamental task of adulting is to cash a rent cheque against a pay cheque. If I was going to set up a test for adulthood, the main route to passing it would be to demonstrate that
I would also grant adulthood to anyone who completes 2x months of military service with a satisfactory disciplinary record (who otherwise would not be named on a lease) or to students who have reached a certain academic standard (whose income includes scholarships and financial aid which are effectively earned in that the money is paid out against demonstrated responsibility, but not taxed as earned income). The standard I am thinking is roughly completion of the standard maths sequence through linear algebra and multivariable calculus (for STEM students) or completing a course which requires reading a complete Great Book in the foreign-language original (for humanities students).
Whether adult privileges should be granted to married mothers who don't qualify under the other heads is a complication I won't discuss in public.
I am also open to the idea that access to the four boxes of full citizenship should be restricted to people who qualify as an adult under at least two of the above headings.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the optimal test would exclude the thug while including the nerd. It would be nice if the incentives were aligned to teach the nerd some toughness that he is capable of learning along the way, but it shouldn't come at a cost of putting thugs ahead. That would be a perversion of what I believe a society of legal adults should look like (i.e. it shouldn't look like a hunter-gatherer tribe).
Agreed and endorsed.
I would certainly make the point that thugs will commit thuggery whether or not we give them the license to do so or not. I think the reason we want to toughen up the nerd is so they are capable of embracing ALL of the responsibility we might expect of an adult, including coming to the defense of their community if a bunch of thugs band together and try to take the things they feel they're being denied.
So yeah, we might want to have a test that exclude thugs from certain legal rights... but the larger question there is what do we do with them after the test, they're still around, and still able to act on their preferences, even if our legal system doesn't recognize their status.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Marshmallow Test is billed as a test of delayed gratification, but I suspect it is more a test of whether the subject trusts authority.
Given how small the marshmallows used in the experiment were, it is also a test of the intrinsic desire to pass tests - the reward for passing is the marginal difference between two tiny marshmallows and one, which would not be sufficient extrinsic motivation to get the average 6 year old to do something they don't want to do.
More options
Context Copy link
Little of both.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One problem with that is that some people are born with high pain tolerance and would be able to pass such a test well before they are even close to mental maturity, while others are born with low pain tolerance and could not pass such a test at any age despite having far better judgement than the former.
(Another issue is that the entire point of improving society is to reduce the amount of human suffering [some would include animal suffering in this] in the world, and such measures would be a gigantic step backwards for very uncertain, if any, benefit.)
Edit: Would a society, which officially considers those with lower pain tolerance to be lesser, be willing to offer a child undergoing chirurgery for a malfunctioning gallbladder pain management beyond 'bite the leather strap'?
Specifically, this makes women legally children again.
Turns, stares directly into the camera.
I mean IF THE SHOE FITS.
If we're building our notion of consent from a starting point that assumes/accepts that men and women are generally different, this would probably inform many other ways in which we arrange society.
And the thing about children, at least the law attempts to protect them from exploitation.
Consider, math is the one subject that women haven't caught up with men in despite best efforts over DECADES.
Consider Women hold the majority of student loan debt.
And they pay if off slower than men in general.
If it turns out that a lot of women didn't understand compound interest and the actual implications of accepting loans when they signed up, I would 100% be in favor of releasing them from their loans and making the lenders eat it, b/c there was no true 'meeting of the minds' at the time the loans were incurred.
Under my proposed regime, banks could be forced to write off debts made to any persons who didn't pass the 'maturity test' that showed they actually understand how money and interest actually works, if said person defaults on their loan. No actual consent = no enforceable contract. So banks would prefer to lend to 'mature' individuals.
"But that means women aren't able to attend university as easily!"
Maybe a good thing. But the obvious solution is that they can get someone who does pass the maturity test, maybe their parents... maybe their husband to Co-sign a loan. If they think its a good idea.
Isn't that BETTER than saddling them with a debt they'll quite possibly be stuck with forever? Do we PREFER the world where women unknowingly become debt slaves to the one where they have to either actually learn and understand math OR get someone else's help before they can get loaned money?
For Western and majoritarian values of "we," the answer clearly appears to be yes.
There's a hypercapitalism argument for it, I think.
If we can get them to inject their dollars into the system and saddle them with a requirement that they must stay productive for years and years on end to service their debt, in theory the system captures more of the value they produce than it otherwise might.
And its even BETTER if they eventually get married, and now their husband's productivity can be siphoned off to service her debt too.
That is, people who aren't smart/informed enough to use their debt load wisely are probably never going to make good decisions with money, so maybe it's better than they hand a decent chunk of their salary over to their creditors in perpetuity, since the creditors can at least invest it more wisely.
I despise this argument line, but I can see why some might support it, EVEN aside from egalitarian concerns.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Student loans in the US are generally simple interest, as long as they are paid on time.
Essentially all loans are simple interest if paid on time. Negative amortisation is a notoriously toxic feature, prudent lenders don't allow it, and regulators generally stop imprudent lenders touching it. Negative amortisation was widely available on secured loans (both home mortgages and corporate loans) in the run-up to 2008, and the consequences were as predicted.
More options
Context Copy link
And yet there's a whole genre of social media post where a loanholder bemoans the fact that making minimum/interest only payments results in the debt increasing/never going down. or doesn't even bother to check.
(some of these might be playing dumb, but I think most are honest).
I'm genuinely uncertain which percentage of loanholders are literally too innumerate to get what interest and debt ARE. Its more than 1%. I'd bet more than 10%, honestly.
You could put the actual amortization table in front of them and it might not click.
Look at how many people who end up on Caleb Hammer's show are women. (yes, selection effects are in play).
You cannot convince me that these folks should have been entrusted with the ability to take out 5 figure loans.
See also: This recent tweet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So... Instead of the sloppy but intuitive test of "does she look old enough" one would now have to literally ask if she has a license?
We used to have fucking licenses, it was called “marriage”
And people used to fuck before marriage anyways. The puritans commonly had premarital pregnancies. Covered up by rush marriages.
Fornication was indeed a crime. Like smoking weed today. Illegal and popular.
Fornication was usually punished with a fine, though it could be punished with whipping when the fine was too far out of reach. Both men and women were prosecuted, with an exception that took me embarrassingly long to understand: When accusing a married couple (for conduct before the wedding, naturally), it was common to prosecute only the groom. This is an unspoken discount for the couple out of respect for their subsequent marriage, without having to admit it and undermine the social norm.
Even if we assume that most fornicating couples got away with it (a fair assumption, I think), it still reflects a very different set of norms than those of modern dating.
Fornication was usually covered up (if no pregnancy resulted) or "punished" with a shotgun wedding (if it did). Actual enforcement of the laws against it was vanishingly rare.
I wouldn't say it was common to prosecute anyone at all for pre-marital sex leading to a shotgun wedding. I can believe it was an order of magnitude more common to prosecute the groom than the bride.
Given the actual customs in cisHajnal Europe and Colonial America between about 1600 and the Industrial Revolution, I strongly suspect the actual social norm was "maintain plausible deniability and don't complain if you end up shotgun-married".
More options
Context Copy link
Now that's interesting. I would have assumed married couples would get a free pass for possible past fornication. Sometimes the first baby comes a bit quicker than normal for some young married couples.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Seduction laws, on the other hand, were enforced. It’s probably impossible to have this setup without them- get married and hope for the best is a great alternative to getting prosecuted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is that any different from checking a girl who looks questionable's ID to check the age?
Very
I can with a great degree of safety (90%? 95%?) avoid questionable girls right off the bat by sight.
I can avoid places where underage girls hang out pretty easily and costlessly
No one actually checks their dates ID.
I can't avoid places "people who didn't take or can't pass the sex test" hang out. I can't read it at a glance. I'd HAVE to actually check.
I mean, yes you can.
This allows any venue to directly filter out people that haven't passed the maturity test.
Go places that bounce anyone that isn't 'sexually mature' from entry.
I'm unclear why this seems like an ardurous burden to you.
Perhaps he believes that having to assess documentation to ensure that the state has allowed you and the young woman in question to bang is going to be deeply unsexy. Not unlike mandating STD test results or consent forms beforehand.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
After some thought, and spending time with kids, I have come to the opinion that my own transition to adulthood is probably best delineated by when I stopped being bored: the world is an interesting place and there is far more stuff I want to do and skills I want to acquire than time to do them all. I won't say I don't procrastinate ever, but I am never sitting around wondering what to do. Kids aren't very good at this, in my experience.
To consider a hare-brained thought, The Internet is a (questionably ethical) form of Gom Jabbar. "What's in the box?" "Slop. Endless slop. And also the collective knowledge and creative works of mankind."
The test is whether you fall for any of the well-trod failure modes of The Internet, or actually drive to and engage in self-actualization as Maslow intended.
I had the discussion with friends recently about what being an adult is, and my position was kind of close to yours, it's that an adult has agency and initiative. If an adult sees that something has to be done, he will take into consideration that he can be the one to do it. He doesn't have to always do it, but he is confident he could and sometimes will. A child will only do things when asked or encouraged to do it, or by following others. An adult will plan a vacation trip unprompted, a child will wait for friends or family to invite them. If someone doesn't do it for them, then they will complain that their life is boring, even though they will not do anything to improve it themselves.
There are many old children. Some even elderly. And there are some very young adults.
More options
Context Copy link
Very interesting take on it.
MAYBE if we coordinated well as a civilization we could test everyone before they are allowed access to the free-range internet. If they fall into the slop and gambling and scammy side of things, we restrict them to the Kiddie pool. "You can access Streaming Sites, Facebook, and play multiplayer video games. You can send and receive e-mails and you have access to porn if you're old enough, but you are intentionally unable to ever transmit your financial information to anyone."
(I will grant that this is just begging for a larger censorship regime. Remember I'm already doing magical thinking that we could have civilizational coordination to safely protect kids and the vulnerable)
To play along with the analogy, the Gom Jabbar doesn't work if the test is safe. It may not be enough to run the test in a sandbox: it's easy enough to behave "correctly" a limited test, and far harder to consistently buckle down and get work done instead of
Mottepostingwatching TikTok videos all day.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can cut through most of the murk wrt Trump's actual involvement with Epstein with a few observations:
Any negative fact about Trump that could be leaked has leaked over the last 10 years.
Any criminal charge that had the barest chance of sticking was thrown at him in the last 5 years.
Biden and Co. were in possession of the Epstein files from 2021-2024.
Nothing in the Epstein files that directly implicated Trump in criminal activity was leaked.
No criminal prosecutions for such behavior were attempted during the last five years (caveat: those prosecutions would probably take place in Florida, which is friendly ground for Trump).
MY Bayesian priors on Biden and Co. deciding to leak nasty Trump stuff are extraordinarily high. So the lack of such leaks indicate that salacious Trump stuff just wasn't there... or the ongoing possibility that there's a MAD situation where tons of people would get burned if Epstein stuff goes public. However if that were the case, why'd the attack Trump from every other angle?
Does this prove Trump didn't commit statutory rape, or that he's objectively not a pedo or hebephile or whatever? Nah. But looking at the longer Trump record, it doesn't fit any other observed fact, unless he's just a general, indiscriminate horndog.
Lemme put it this way, if you believe that Trump did indeed bang Stormy Daniels (lol remember that name?) in 2006, when she was in her mid-20's and an active porn star... I REALLY think you have to downgrade your belief that Trump actively prefers young teens. Keep in mind this was around when the Epstein stuff was coming to light! There's just no way a guy would look at THIS (SFW) as a workable substitute for a teenager. And for the record I do think it is more likely than not that he did bang her or at least have a sexual encounter.
Anyhow, I remain glad that people are refusing to let the Epstein issue die. I grew up in Palm Beach County during the time his activities were getting investigated and prosecuted, I've been aware of the basic facts of the situation since I myself was in my teens. I hope enough pressure builds to force some actual revelations and possibly prosecutions... but it'd be nice if people were a bit more realistic about what they'll probably find.
I don't think he actively prefers them.
Suppose some elite socialite organized a hunt for migratory birds on their private island. From my knowledge, Trump is not much of a hunter and has never displayed any intent to break federal wildlife statues.
However, if he were to learn that the creme de la creme, including British royalty, is along for the hunting trip, he might still come along and shoot at some birds. He will probably not kill the most, but in my model he would certainly enjoy rubbing shoulders and doing something naughty with the rest of the elite.
Likewise, if it is an open secret that the rich and powerful enjoy banging underage girls on Epstein's Island, I do not think that Trump will go "too bad that is not my cup of tea, they will have to have their secret club without me". Instead, he is likely deviate from his usual preferences a bit to be part of the secret club. After all, few men are so much into MILFs that they would not enjoy a blowjob from a busty 16yo.
A single look at the period photo of the prostitute he got into trouble with - Stormy Daniels(middling tasteful nude) makes it pretty clear he's not interested in teens.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, but the allegations are not "blowjobs from 16 or 17 year olds who would be legal, depending what jurisdiction you were in", it's "Trump and Epstein raped twelve and thirteen year olds".
If it were just "sexy hot 17 year old" nobody would much care. It has to be "frightened coerced beaten thirteen year old" or nothing, because the mud has to be the blackest, dirtiest, stickiest mud to throw.
Politico, back in 2019, did an article on all the assault allegations (as of then) against Trump. While there's plenty of gross, disgusting, and immoral acts (by my sex-negative prudish religious anti-fun judgement), there's only two (unless you go by the updated definition of rape) charges of rape: 'Katie Johnson' with the Epstein allegations, and E. Jean Carroll with her Bergdorf Goodman adventure - which, let me say, I don't believe or at least do not think it proven. Read her account, replace "Trump" with "Biden" and imagine for yourself all the media articles ripping the holes in the story wide open and claiming she was trying to smear a decent man for nefarious reasons, ranging from trying to extort money to being a Republican plant.
The rest are all of the "grab 'em by the pussy" kind: groping, kissing, unwanted touching, invitations to go back to his room. Distinct lack of "I was only twelve and he raped me in the hotel bedroom" accounts:
More options
Context Copy link
Yep.
But Trump deviates from the elite norm in more ways than one. Being a Teetotaler, for one.
Is there any evidence that Trump gave in and accepted an invite to sample the finest wines or spirits in the world with his elite buds? It wouldn't be very scandalous, but I've heard no such fact.
Dude also happily enjoys diet coke and McDonalds, to boot. I get the feeling he knows what he likes and indulges in it, and isn't easily tempted to do things just because the cool kids are doing it.
I'm not saying this means he wouldn't want to have the 16 year old, just that he's far enough outside the celeb/power broker stereotype, I don't think he's the type to try something just to fit in with the crowd.
He has some sort of trauma because someone in his family died bc of alcoholism? I've seen similar behavior in Russian expats. They won't even have a beer bc of what they saw in 1990s Russia. Very odd people.
Yes, his brother had very serious alcoholism and died early as a result.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think Trump would happily go to a wine tasting with other powerful people, even if he wouldn’t personally drink.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump digs himself in deeper with every new quote. Epstein "stole" young girls from him? Now why would he say something like that?
As far as I can tell from the clip in question, those were literally women who worked for his company or resort, and they left his employ because Epstein tempted them away with some other offer. And he's not particularly happy that it happened!
Is "stealing" employees not a relatively common phrase?
If Trump had said something more literal in terms of "abduct" or "kidnap" I'd perk my ears up for sure. As it stands, this makes it marginally LESS likely Trump was complicit, because it indicates he was NOT facilitating Epstein in trafficking his employees. If Trump was helping Epstein, why would Epstein need to 'steal' the girls?
Am I wrong?
It was a not entirely unheard-of plotline in Edwardian-Era comedies.
The preferred term is normally "poaching".
"Stealing" implies you have a property right in your employees. "Poaching" suggests that the employees are wild animals who you have customary rights over as long as they are on your territory.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unfortunately, I think this ship sailed decades ago. In the public imagination, "paedophile" scans as synonymous with "person who has sexually assaulted a person below the age of majority, without penetration" or "person who has committed statutory rape" or "person who has been accused of committing statutory rape" or "person who seems interested in committing statutory rape" or even in some cases "person who is significantly older than his or her romantic or sexual partner (even if said partner is of the age of majority)". (Hell, in at least one case it was seen as synonymous with "paediatrician" - this article is twenty-five years old.)
A person who is eager to draw a distinction between "paedophilia" and "ephebophilia" will be accused of pedantic hair-splitting at best and nefarious motives at worst (honestly, I don't even think the latter is unreasonable, unless the person drawing the distinction is a literal clinical psychologist or similar); likewise a person who is eager to draw a distinction between "paedophilia" (a disorder of sexual attraction which does not imply a particular pattern of behaviour) and "child molestation" (an actual behaviour).
Yeah, this might be the most egregious motte-and-bailey that is currently widely accepted.
Call someone a 'pedophile' because they express attraction towards someone just barely under the age of majority, and uninformed onlookers might very well imagine that they're a predator who stalks 10 year olds with designs on kidnapping and molesting them.
And since Pedophiles (the actual child-attracted kind) are virtually the LAST remaining 'identity group' which it is universally accepted are okay to hate, abuse, and maybe even murder, there's huge incentive to get an outgroup member classified as such.
And deeper than just your point:
Defending pedophiles AT BEST gets you marked as 'low status' and 'weird.' I don't think any person, in the history of EVER, has managed to increase their social standing by being the guy advocating for a nuanced view on child-diddling.
So anyone sensitive to social status just WON'T defend them, even if they do have nuanced beliefs on it.
No, the most egregious motte-and-bailey is "consent".
Note that this statement:
is a specific version of the more general form, which is:
and the popular definition of "pedophile" is fundamentally just the most defensible/best Think Of The Children extension of that core idea. (Because no, that definition only includes man on girl; we pretend it includes man on boy when it's politically convenient to do so, but we don't treat the two equally.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The thing is that Trump's style is Turbo folk divas. He likes women with big plastic boobs and more surgery than brains. His type is Jenna Jamison in her prime. Nothing in his public dating life even hints that he is attracted to the types of poor Florida girls that were hauled on the Lolita express.
Honestly I think that the whole thing is to protect Andrew - probably UK has threatened to make a big stink. And some nice blackmail materials on all levels of USG and titans of industry.
Trump is scared even if he’s not on the list, because a full accounting of the truth would have people seriously calling for revolutionary tribunals and guilotines. And not just the types that are always calling for that.
More options
Context Copy link
What is surprising to me is that Trump would be willing to alienate a large part of his base for that.
My understanding of Trump is that he has a fragile ego and really needs to be popular. I think his refusal to believe that he might have lost to Sleepy Joe stems from that, ultimately. A more cynical power player might determine that two dozen influential people on the top beholden to him are worth more than ten million supporters, but Trump does not strike me as that kind of guy.
But Epstein stuff is not hurting Trump Much with his actual base. It’s the twitterati resistance libs making a stink about it once more, as they have over a thousand other things, and Trump digging in his heels because that’s always worked for him before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The "word on the street" among the conspiracy crowd is that the "most requested" age range at Epstein Island was 14-16. That was typical. It was mainly Epstein himself who had the more, well, "unusual" preferences.
Completely unverified rumors! Make of it what you will!
This is kinda what I figured. I think that the women being underage was kind of the point, every taboo is also a fetish, and "what we are doing would land a normal guy in jail but we are powerful men who are above plebeian moral and legal considerations" probably aroused them, but at the end of the day most of Epstein's guests were guys with pretty normal preferences (and evolutionarily speaking, "society permitting, have sex with any women who look healthy and fertile, no matter if they are 15 or 35" is probably the dominant strategy for men). Thankfully, raping toddlers, murdering them and drinking blood from their skulls is something very few people are into -- and even if some of Epstein's guests were into that, they likely had more sense than to share that desire with him.
I do work from the assumption that having a ton of power probably feels a bit pointless if you aren't able to flex said power to flout the rules that bind us mere mortals, and there are so very few strong taboos left these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link