Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Some Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with Teenage Girls

Some Thoughts on Jeffrey Epstein’s Interactions with Teenage Girls

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?

  1. Wilson
    July 12, 2019 at 4:01 am

    It’s not like teenage girls are taught abstinence or to marry their first boyfriends, promiscuous sex is encouraged, so punishing older men is just done out of spite, the unwritten law is that a man should not be allowed to have sex with a woman better than he deserves

    • hoipolloi
      July 12, 2019 at 4:42 am

      @Wilson. It is part of prevailing societal attitude that some man some ware may be having good time with a woman. Persons like Jeffrey Epstein in all likely hood must have done other criminal offences such as tax evasion, black mailing, spying for a foreign country etc. which society is willing to overlook.

    • P Ray
      July 12, 2019 at 5:09 pm

      the unwritten law is that a man should not be allowed to have sex with a woman better than he deserves
      I’ve always felt this to be true, which is why I observe a lot of those guys saying “Just have confidence bro” and “Chicks like a persistent guy” … are rarely the guys that go after women … the women are the ones chasing those guys.

      I have a belief that the same guys and girls who tell other men to chase, are also the ones either most likely to tattle to other that someone is “harassing” another person, talking about how regular men should “man up and marry a former ho” or saying that any man who puts his foot down to female unreasonableness is an “incel, or planning violence towards women”.

      Also remember, mainstream dating advice … is not designed to actually make and keep you satisfied with a stable relationship. It’s there to make you continuously circulate, keeping the entertainment, education and legal industries healthy.

  2. hoipolloi
    July 12, 2019 at 5:21 am

    @AD. “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.”

    With the sting of unmarried pregnancy gone due to contraception, sex should be decriminalized.

  3. emery
    July 12, 2019 at 8:58 am

    It could be that the girls Epstein are seen with are borderline (ie teens) only because the older girls are the ones let out to be seen. The rumor mill is full of Epstein pimping out toddlers and such. It is known that in other brothels that use underage girls (stories from abroad, stories of criminals who are arrested for sex slavery, pimp stories, etc) once the girls ‘age out’ they are used as handlers for the younger ones and given general upkeep tasks like being seen in public or paying bills. Most times abused girls cooperate. In this case it could be that he’s being pursued for the really bad stuff (baby snuff or something) and the media’s keeping the camera on the abused stockholm-syndrome girls who aged out to try and trick people into thinking his only crime was banging a 15 yr old who looks 18.

    • plus d'un cafard
      July 13, 2019 at 11:54 am

      Looking into pedo scandals in the past, you realise there’s just no bottom. Anything goes.

      The Russians are less civilised and can’t manage to (or don’t want to) cover up their messes, so we know about the snuff movies of kids (starting at 2 year olds) they produced, after the Italian police found the evidence in 2005. (Well, I say Russian, but you can guess there is an interesting detail missing.)

      In Europe proper (UK, France, Belgium, Lithuania, …), you also get very suspicious cases, like the Dutroux affair, that get rushed into “isolated incident, case closed” as soon as any links to police, government officials and a larger network becomes possible.

      Not too long ago we had Brazil and its John “of God”, keeping teenage girls in abandoned mines as baby factories, selling the produce abroad for a nice little sum.

      It’s all the time, everywhere. No sentence without proof of course, but I see no reason to expect less of Epstein.

      • (((They))) Live
        July 13, 2019 at 5:07 pm

        Russians LOL

        FYI- He was referring to Jews of Russian origin. I am guessing that you already know that..

      • Yusef
        July 15, 2019 at 1:57 pm

        “Looking into pedo scandals in the past, you realise there’s just no bottom. Anything goes.”

        You nailed it.

        What happens is we get recycling of the “metoo” hysteria about once a decade or so. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen such “reform movements” escalated, hyped, and then quietly dropped.

        Meanwhile, the real sick shit goes on and on.

  4. doldrom
    July 12, 2019 at 10:59 am

    You’re missing something here. It’s easy for rich guys to get younger women, perhaps stick with 18-year olds that look younger, without getting into too much trouble. But Epstein was not just into it for himself, he was offering it to all type of connected people. Why would these people need Epstein to score some younger pussy? I am actually in agreement with you about the supposed victimhood of many women trading sex for money. But there’s more to this.
    I think many of these girls did not know exactly what they were getting into, and that they were in fact being raped and coerced, perhaps some younger and prepubescent. Epstein had on offer something you cannot get just by being powerful and rich, and that was probably abusing that power on fearful and innocent girls. Predation without fear of the normal social consequences. The height of perversity: causing fear and distress to the innocent.
    There also has to be some other background to Epstein than just a wealthy playboy with lots of powerful friends sharing a predilection for younger women — something much more sinister and political.
    I remember reading about some serial rapist/killer in the Peru, Ecuador, Columbia triangle (Guinness records) who lured young Indian girls at small-time markets (under pretext of buying something for their mother, a surprise), then talking them up, offering them food, and finally raping and strangling them. The kick? The look of mortal fear in their shocked and innocent eyes at the moment supreme.

  5. July 12, 2019 at 7:39 pm

    The feds are coming after R. Kelly, meanwhile…

    Saw that yesterday. Isn’t it ironic given that R. Kelly went after older girls that Epstein.

  6. July 12, 2019 at 8:30 pm

    Just read this article in it’s entirety and you, as usual, know your shit! – In response to your last paragraph, I know a lot of females who WOULD feel “degraded” or “wasting time” if they worked at Walmart, or as waitresses, bartenders, school-teachers, etc. Which is why a handful of women in AND outside of America CHOOSE sex work. But of course, certain feminist groups (who support women’s choices, unless it involves sex work – in order to raise the price of pussy) and stupid “patriarchal”, traditional minded jackasses love to paint a different picture.

    • July 14, 2019 at 5:23 pm

      “I know a lot of females who WOULD feel “degraded” or “wasting time” if they worked at Walmart, or as waitresses, bartenders, school-teachers, etc. Which is why a handful of women in AND outside of America CHOOSE sex work.”

      Agreed.
      In fact, one is my wife, of 39 years, who’s worked 15-25 hours a week as a streamate cam model for the past seven years.

      She sets her own hours, can block customers she dislikes, does have some say in what she will and won’t do on cam, and doesn’t have to step a foot outside our home to work. Even at her age, she nets an average of $15 an hour, after the site gets their 2/3 of the per-minute rate, she pays expenses (lots of lighting, toys, props), and she pays self-employment taxes (she files under 1099). She sees her sex work as a superior way to make money in contrast to a 9-5 job to which she’d have to travel so a boss might constantly breathe down her neck.

      And, her view of sex work? She chuckles, “How is it degrading to me? Men can’t help being horny and needing to get off — I’m willing to help them but only if they pay me for it. Who is really exploiting whom?”

    • Yusef
      July 15, 2019 at 2:21 pm

      “I know a lot of females who WOULD feel “degraded” or “wasting time” if they worked at Walmart,”

      Did you know Hilary Clinton was the first woman on the Walmart board of directors, and while she was there, the only woman? This seems particularly relevant in this context both because Hilary didn’t do a damned thing for women working at Walmart, and because I am sure Epstein’s relationship and whatever he’s holding on Bill Clinton has been key to his invincibility.

  7. Lurkin_Larry
    July 13, 2019 at 2:46 pm

    Dude, you’re better than this

  8. cheers
    July 13, 2019 at 3:25 pm

    Who cares if any of the women fucked Epstein voluntarily? Epstein not only preyed on women, he also ran a massive blackmail scheme, and produced cp.

    Your core issue: You continually talk about having transactional sex with many prostitutes. Your interactions have clouded your vision on the topic of transactional sex and has likely produced a guilt complex.

    Transactional sex is never a no harm no foul experience. Especially over a period of time. Envy, regret, passion, sadness, suffering, contempt, embarrassment… humans have emotions.

    • P Ray
      July 13, 2019 at 4:36 pm

      I think if people are more aware of how their circumstances shape their choices, guilt would be less of an issue.
      Remember, many of the women in porn for example, are good-looking enough to be front office receptionists, restaurant servers or sales representatives.
      But here we are sparing not a thought for the men that have to pay them the equivalent of at least a week’s pay … for around an hour of simulated love.

      Isn’t that a crime too? But at least it’s comforting to know that while you can’t buy love, at least you can rent it.

    • hoipolloi
      July 14, 2019 at 4:01 am

      Envy, regret, passion, sadness, suffering, contempt, embarrassment… could be part of transactional sex or marriage.

      • July 14, 2019 at 9:14 pm

        Exactly.

        Believing that the emotions of envy, regret, sadness, suffering, contempt, embarrassment, jealousy, bitterness, resentment, loneliness, anger, even rejection, are not experienced in any marital sex is idealistic fantasy.

        Similarly, asserting that those emotions are the inevitable long-term consequences of all, most, or even much transactional sex is “the-way-I-wish-it-to-be, facts-notwithstanding” nonsense.

      • July 15, 2019 at 7:17 pm

        @joesantus

        You are right. to reiterate something Thugtician said years ago …these people act as if relationships happen in a legal, adverse or sexual void… where the only thing that matters is “choosing wisely”, then it’s “Happily Every After”.

        Yeah….. ok!

  9. July 19, 2019 at 8:32 am

    All is worth considering. But life isn’t so simple that we can state with certainty that all those teenage girls (and other people in similar situations) were, or are, capable of predicting the full consequences of their human agency at the time. We must consider the fact that beneficial human agency includes the ability to reasonably predict the full consequences of ones actions. If human agency does not include reasonably predicting the consequences of ones actions, then it would undoubtedly be ineffective at preserving the well being and or sanity of the individual. In fact, such lack of foresight would render “human agency” an oxymoron. Would it not? All of us make decisions we later regret while interacting WITH OTHERS WHO DO KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES AND DO NOT CARE.

    Epstein’s female recruiters and handlers were not targeting girls from stable homes and families, or prudent religious girls. They were systematically approaching and grooming girls from “broken homes”, single parent households and the like. In other words, Epstein was premeditatedly selecting girls who’s human agency was not the same as those who would never engage themselves with him as the ones who did. Epstein’s girl handlers (who were apparently all women) were hunting and targeting girls who’s human agency was compromised compared to their piers who Epstein specifically did not target. Epstein’s efforts would have been mostly futile if his girl handlers had targeted girls from secure stable families. It is the fools, the desperate and the weak who are lured into such situations. You can argue that the girls are all better off for having sucked his dick, given him hand jobs and the like or that they at least had the potential to be better off. But is that really true? Are they? If so, why do they have such strong regrets, so much so that some are coming forward with what appears to be very emotionally painful testimony? Are they faking their pain? Are ALL these girls so sociopathic that their emotions are nothing more than fake charades employed to pretend they were psychologically damaged? What would they have to gain by displaying themselves as such? They were paid by Epstein for the sexual acts at the time they performed them. Are they being paid for the same acts again now by the interviewers? Maybe they are. Will any of them be paid again in the future for their sexual acts with Epstein by writing books or allowing their names to be used? Maybe their opportunities haven’t ended. Maybe sucking and fucking rich dick pays more and for longer than ever before in history. Who seeks such opportunity?

    For personal reasons the intelligent and prudent tend to avoid such situations. ALL girls do not give rich guys blow jobs, hand jobs, and ride rich dick. Many of them who are very attractive do not. Otherwise, rich guys would have an endless stream of sex with ALL attractive girls and it would be so predominant that no one would care, it would be “normal”. But in fact it is not normal and one primary reason it is not is because there is a significant number of girls and women who simply do not participate in sex the way Epstein’s “victims” did. Perhaps these things tend to occur between people who “care” less because those who care less for themselves tend to also care less foe others.

    • P Ray
      July 20, 2019 at 8:49 pm

      Try to remember that no matter what the outcome – those women lawfully chose to be with Epstein, until he gained sexual release.

      If you are going to talk about not mentally impaired women having no agency, then I fail to see reasonable grounds behind the outrage that they get treated as second-class citizens.

      A lot of women also seem to “care less” about poor treatment from guys, when it is a guy they are attracted to.

      You should perhaps google “Scientific Blackpill” and rebut those proven, cited studies with ones of your own … unless you don’t have any and merely intend to whiteknight for women.

    • P Ray
      July 20, 2019 at 9:37 pm

      Also … those girls are “mentally impaired”, yet had trouble finding guys shorter than them, less educated, earning less than them to have sex with?

      But somehow wound up with a guy taller than them, more educated than them and with lots of money?

      Strange kind of mental impairment, that.

    • Yusef
      July 22, 2019 at 3:19 pm

      “For personal reasons the intelligent and prudent tend to avoid such situations. ALL girls do not give rich guys blow jobs, hand jobs, and ride rich dick. Many of them who are very attractive do not.”

      Can’t say I completely agree with you here. Rich guys do have a steady stream of attractive women willing to be wined, dined, and then “enjoyed.”

      What they don’t have is ready access to the kinky and illegal shit Epstein seemed able and willing to procure. I agree with you on your other points, though.

      • P Ray
        July 22, 2019 at 10:44 pm

        Maybe people are angry at him in a racist way, i.e.
        “he’s one of those sponsors trapped in a white guy’s body”?

        They can’t actually go after those sponsors because they have a cozy relationship with American leadership and they’re not American citizens … so they go after him?

        “sponsor” = person from http://tagthesponsor.com/

  1. July 14, 2019 at 2:09 am
  2. August 10, 2019 at 10:11 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: