Archive for July 11, 2019

Some Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with Teenage Girls

July 11, 2019 26 comments

Readers might have noticed that the previous post on Jeffrey Epstein focused almost exclusively on the potential political fallout of new investigations into his numerous dalliances with teenage girls, rather than the “morality” or “legality” of such interactions. Here is why. Firstly, anybody who has read enough human history or studies the world around them understands that human beings, as a species, lack the concept of anything approaching “morality”. Whatever passes as human “morality” is best described as selective hypocrisy towards others while turning a blind eye to their own selves. A good contemporary example of this is people in USA pretending to be outraged by “human rights violations” in China while imprisoning far more people (numbers and percentage) than the later. Or how most Americans pretend that ‘social credit score’ is a bad idea while trying to improve their own private credit scores while also cheering on internet monopolies who sell their personal information to other corporations and government agencies etc.

Similarly, the concept of “legality” is highly dubious. Let us not forget that USA was founded on land stolen from its original inhabitants who were genocided and later built by the institution of race-based slavery. In fact, slaves rather than land or machinery accounted for the largest class of financial assets in pre-1860 USA. Similarly, the systemic theft and genocide of many millions in early 20th century Congo perpetrated by Belgium (under Leopold II) was “legal” as were the various genocides perpetrated by the Turkish (1, 2) and Nazi regimes (3, 4) in the first half of the 20th century. The same can be said about the Late Victorian Holocausts in certain parts of India and Bengal famine of 1943. We should also not forget that overt race-based discrimination was official government policy in USA until the late 1960s and its less obvious manifestations persist to this day. My point being that “legality” is nothing more than whatever the governing system in power chooses to support and enforce.

With that in mind, let us have a look at other aspects of the case against Jeffrey Epstein.

1] Many of you might might have noticed that Epstein is being portrayed as sexual predator of children. But is that correct? Based on what we know about the evidence so far, most of the girls he was involved with were between 15-17. While some might want to see a 15-17 year old girl as a child.. but let us get real.. while girls between 14-17 are not “legally” adults, they are certainly not prepubescent aka children. The medical definition of a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty. There is a very good reason most if us make the distinction between children and teenagers. Even if we assume that Epstein’s encounters were largely with girls between 14-16, there is no evidence (as of yet) that even one was pre-pubescent or even barely pubescent.

2] So let us talk about how age of consent in USA ended up at 18, and yes.. it does vary a bit across jurisdictions. FYI, it varies even more around the world. One can, however, see a trend where most reasonably well-off and stable countries seems to put it around 16. Note that the age of consent in almost all countries is lower than the age at which people can vote or enter into legal contracts as adults. I am guessing that you are now starting to see why the age of consent became what it is now in USA. While it is easy to argue that, for the vast majority of human history, a girl past menarche was considered a women- there is another way to make a similar argument. It starts by considering human agency aka capacity of a person to make conscious decisions and act in a given environment.

Human agency, however, is not an all or none thing. For example, the vast majority of people do not believe that a 10-year old has the mental maturity to vote in elections or enter into legal contracts on their own. However, the same people will not challenge the agency of that child to make choose their hobbies or which peers they develop friendships with. The question is.. why is that so? One could make the argument that choosing hobbies and friends can often be almost as consequential as voting in elections or entering into some legal contracts. In my opinion, the difference between the two categories of decisions (listed above) is correlated to the ability to understand their impact. A 10-year old can quickly gauge positive and negative effects of having certain hobbies and making certain friends. However, he or she, does not yet have sufficient experience with politics or legal contracts to properly assess benefits and risks of their decisions.

3] And this leads us to the rationalization for Patriarchy aka subjugation of women in agriculture-based societies. Have you ever wondered how a small percentage of rich men justified patriarchy, racism and oligarchical systems of governance? Easy.. they justified everything from patriarchy, racism and socio-economic oligarchy by claiming that certain groups such as women, non-whites and non-rich people were either incomplete humans or non-human and hence lacked capability for full human agency. Claiming that the target of abuse, exploitation, theft etc had reduced or no capacity for personal human agency has always been the most important argument to justify such shitty behavior. Indeed, first and second wave feminism, anti-racist movement, anti-colonial movements and socialism spent much time successfully arguing that the groups they represented were capable of full human agency. So why are modern leftists and the “woke” crowd trying to turn back the clock?

The thing is.. human agency does not follow made-up rules of social conventions or currents norms of “respectability”. For example- a woman is not always going to aim for a respectable guy or girl. Indeed, she may actually prefer the so-called ‘bad boy’ type over the pathetic doormats aka beta. Similarly, one has to factor that a woman may end up having sex with guys for all sorts of “less respectable” reasons such as monetary or career gains or just temporary infatuation. In other words, accepting the fact that women have personal agency means also accepting that they will often willingly act in ways that not “proper”, “nice” or “respectable”. But how does this apply to the Epstein saga?

4] Have you ever considered the possibility that all those teenage girls who were blowing or riding Epstein were fully aware of what they were doing and did so voluntarily? But why would they have sex with a guy old enough to be their father? Well.. maybe they did it for the money. Epstein always paid the girls, he had sex with, quite generously. And this is also true for the non-teenage women who had transactional sex with him. One could go so far as to say that having sex with Epstein opened many opportunities for the women he fucked. By all accounts, his so-called “sex slaves” now have far richer lifestyles than they would otherwise have had. But.. but.. what about “human trafficking”. Well.. it is just the modern version of what used to be called “white slavery” in USA.. an ironic term, if you ask me. Long story short, both terms have nothing to do with helping women and everything to do with maintaining a particular racial hierarchy.

Now tell me.. how was willingly giving BJs to Epstein for lots of money any worse than working at Walmart? How was willingly having sex with him for money more degrading than working at Amazon or a subcontractor for FakeBook and Google? Why was willingly having sex with him for money any more nauseating than being on the staff at the mansion or luxury yacht of some rich asshole? How was sucking of Epstein for decent money more dehumanizing than working at a call center? How was jerking him off any more disgusting than working for internet click-bait mills such as BuzzFeed. In summary, it is clear that the teenage girls in question understood what they were doing for money. I am not saying that they liked it, but they went along anyway- for the money. Most importantly, they were clearly mature enough to understand and demonstrate their personal agency.

And you know something else.. the financial and psychological outcome for Epstein’s “sex slaves” has, so far, been much better than those who enlist in the american armed forces.

What do you think? Comments?