Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:11:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Prince Andrew 'tell all' interview to air on Saturday

Started by ajsmith2, November 15, 2019, 12:24:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bgmnts

I'm 27 but not really an adult mentally, is that okay?

garbed_attic

Quote from: Danger Man on December 02, 2019, 11:35:07 PM
Have you ever looked at an 'age of consent' map, Gout Pony?

Most of the planet considers 16/17 to be ok.

As said, if I'm honest with myself, I think the shift partly *is* due to an Americanisation (or Californication more specifically) of culture, as well as extended childhoods and all sorts of other reasons. But a shift clearly has occurred over the last decade or two.

And it has led to some weird cognitive dissonances in some regards - I mentioned on here a while back being on a bus the other month and school kids calling each other pedos for fancying kids //literally their own age// ... Even back when I was in secondary school in the early 2000s, my best friend got a lot of bullying for liking anime due a belief that the characters looked like 14-year-old girls... when he was a 14-year-old boy.

In terms of "are 17-year-olds ready for sex?" I ultimately don't think there's really an objective right or wrong position on the matter due to the simple fact that different individuals mature at different rates. You need an age of consent and it's always going to be culturally contingent. But what the word "paedophile" means here in the English-speaking world has definitely changed. The simple fact that people arguing the point now that "fancying 17-year-olds doesn't make you a paedophile" are now called out as creepy in a way they likely wouldn't have been 20 years back alone testifies to that fact.

garbed_attic

Maybe its just an OCD thing... I just find the constant level of disingenuousness online and IRL grinds me right down. Some people would call it "political correctness", but it's not even that really b/c even racists equivocate about why they don't want Eastern European immigrants in their town. I'd like a Brexit supporter to just outright say, "When I'm walking down the high-street and I pass a load of people not talking English, it makes me feel uncomfortable because I don't know what they're saying", for instance, rather than appealing to abstract notions of "Britishness" or "sovereign nation" or even jobs.

It's frustrating because large chunks of people end up praising/admiring the likes of Trump and Boris because they seem them as straight-talking because they're not politically correct. But if Boris was actually honest with himself and others he'd just say "I'm selfish and like money and can only imagine that other people are selfish and like money" and be done with it!

Basically... if people think it's fine to have sex with 16/17-year-olds, they should just say it, rather than trying to appeal to conceptual notions like ephebophilia that people only ever mention when they want to justify fancying teens of that age!

In a weird way I can deal with D_M because at least I know where I am with him on the whole!

garbed_attic

Anyway, Prince Andrew is clearly an over-pampered, self-centred turd of a man who struggles extending empathy outside his narrow circle of privilege (if at all). He's a symptom of a stupid arcane system that any sensible country would have gotten rid of millennia ago. He should be locked up... but even that probably wouldn't get it into his thick skull that he'd done something wrong. I'm not even sure if its worth punishing someone if they don't understand why they deserve to be punished. Just decommission the royal family and put him somewhere where he can't hurt anyone.

I don't always like Neil Gaiman, but he was onto something with this story...

https://a-sunsetinmyveins.tumblr.com/post/1462028133/a-story-from-fragile-things-short-fictions-and

Captain Z

Now that the Queen has died I expect that will distract a lot of the attention, sadly.

Piggyoioi

i reckon its possible for a non pedo to be physically attracted to even a 14 year old. the game changer is when you're aware of their age. people that date or fuck outside the generally excepted and relative age bracket i would consider seedy creeps but i've seen underage soon to be supermodels that look 18+. maybe we should reserve the nonce classification to people that genuinely find pre pubescent girls attractive? isn't that a genuine sexual disorder?

is prince andrew a pedo if we use that as a qualifier..... maybe not? the issue is he abused a sex trafficked girl who was young when she was groomed to begin with. that he is a seedy creeping cunt is indisputable, he clearly got off on the element of control his privileged mediocre mind managed to muster over a younger girl. he deserves to be punished both socially and within the law wherever possible.

greenman

Quote from: gout_pony on December 02, 2019, 11:49:00 PM
As said, if I'm honest with myself, I think the shift partly *is* due to an Americanisation (or Californication more specifically) of culture, as well as extended childhoods and all sorts of other reasons. But a shift clearly has occurred over the last decade or two.

And it has led to some weird cognitive dissonances in some regards - I mentioned on here a while back being on a bus the other month and school kids calling each other pedos for fancying kids //literally their own age// ... Even back when I was in secondary school in the early 2000s, my best friend got a lot of bullying for liking anime due a belief that the characters looked like 14-year-old girls... when he was a 14-year-old boy.

In terms of "are 17-year-olds ready for sex?" I ultimately don't think there's really an objective right or wrong position on the matter due to the simple fact that different individuals mature at different rates. You need an age of consent and it's always going to be culturally contingent. But what the word "paedophile" means here in the English-speaking world has definitely changed. The simple fact that people arguing the point now that "fancying 17-year-olds doesn't make you a paedophile" are now called out as creepy in a way they likely wouldn't have been 20 years back alone testifies to that fact.

Honestly though that really doesn't do your case much favours that we should follow this definition that's basically highly questionable playground abuse.

I must admit it makes me a bit uneasy in the sense that it feels a bit like its focused more on some desire to focus someone's "otherness" in a fashion we normally get from the right rather than on their potential immoral acts and the harm they cause. In this case as well I think it downplays what he's being accused of, if it was messing around with 25 year olds in the same circumstances that would still be pretty damning.

Urinal Cake

With Epstein, Andy etc the problem is that these girls and women (maybe boys- Spacey?) were trafficked not really the state by state differences about ages of consent.

Ephebophilia is just a catch all. What makes fancying late teenage girls weirder/wronger is if you're a parent of  yourself since as a parent you'd think or feel something was a bit off.

garbed_attic

Quote from: greenman on December 03, 2019, 12:18:50 AM
Honestly though that really doesn't do your case much favours that we should follow this definition that's basically highly questionable playground abuse.

I must admit it makes me a bit uneasy in the sense that it feels a bit like its focused more on some desire to focus someone's "otherness" rather than on their potential immoral acts and the harm they cause. In this case as well I think it downplays what he's being accused of, if it was messing around with 25 year olds in the same circumstances that would still be pretty damning.

I very much agree with you on all three points!

But what I'm saying is that - rightly or wrongly - the way a lot of people (especially younger generations) use the term 'paedophile' has changed. Basically, it's a moot point arguing "But Prince Andrew isn't really a paedophile!" All that shows is a discomfort with the term paedophile being used to encompass attraction to 16/17-year-olds.


Jockice

Quote from: gout_pony on December 02, 2019, 11:49:00 PM

And it has led to some weird cognitive dissonances in some regards - I mentioned on here a while back being on a bus the other month and school kids calling each other pedos for fancying kids //literally their own age// ... Even back when I was in secondary school in the early 2000s, my best friend got a lot of bullying for liking anime due a belief that the characters looked like 14-year-old girls... when he was a 14-year-old boy.


At my school in the early 80s a boy was considered a paedo if he fancied (or even worse went out with) someone three years below him. Two years was fine though. In the upper sixth I bumped into a lad from my year in a cafe with a girl from the fourth year. He literally begged me not to tell anyone. Now he was one of the youngest from my year, so he wouldn't even have turned 18 yet. I'm not sure how old she was at the time but she could have been 15. And of course some girls can come across as very mature at that age whereas some boys can be very immature. I speak from experience. Yet, the stigma was so much that just mentioning seeing them together would have been equivalent to me claiming that I'd seen him raping her over one of the cafe tables. I didn't tell anyone. It wasn't really any of my concern.

Captain Z

A BBC article states that the infamous photo of Andrew, Virginia and Ghislaine was handed to the FBI in 2011 and first published by the Daily Mail that year.

Wasn't Private Eye printing it long before that? I stopped reading around 2013 but I definitely remember it getting regular rotation along with that similar one of Rupert Murdoch.

Cuellar


Ambient Sheep

Yeah, I didn't like to say, but I've been an avid Private Eye reader for 34(!) years now and I don't remember them printing it until recently.

And yes it's usually Andrew Neil and not-Pamella-Bordes.  A similar one of Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Wade/Brooks has been printed occasionally too.


Icehaven

No that relevant but I did have to laugh slightly at the lawyer representing Epstein's victims being interviewed on the news this morning, when she said something like ''We're not intimidated by who he is, we're used to litigating against rich, powerful people'', as if there's any point whatsoever in litigating against poor nobodies who have neither the cash not the influence to put up much of a fight and from whom, if there's a financial element to the action, you're going to get precisely nothing anyway.

For what it's worth, Andrew Neil knew Epstein, and appears in Epstein's little black book. Epstein seemed to cosy up with a lot of press people for one reason or another

Cuellar

Has anyone checked his book to see if it's just all Andrews? Maybe that was his fetish, not kids. He's just 'into Andrews'.



Jittlebags

I presume the Chuckle Brothers and Wee Jimmy Krankie are in an addendum.

Jittlebags

Ah, fuck me. There's a 'Todd Meister' in there. Pure Mince.

Sin Agog

Quote from: Jittlebags on December 03, 2019, 03:42:08 PM
I presume the Chuckle Brothers and Wee Jimmy Krankie are in an addendum.

They preferred to ride aboard the Lolita Ford Transit Van.

Lordofthefiles

Quote from: Sin Agog on December 03, 2019, 03:47:36 PM
They preferred to ride aboard the Lolita Ford Transit Van.

The Lolita National Express

imitationleather

The Chuckle Brothers would only travel by the Lolita quadricycle, surely?

Oh dear, oh dear!

studpuppet

Quote from: Cuellar on December 03, 2019, 03:22:39 PM
Has anyone checked his book to see if it's just all Andrews? Maybe that was his fetish, not kids. He's just 'into Andrews'.

No, that's what his big red book is for...


Blumf


studpuppet

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on December 03, 2019, 03:24:43 PM
The most surprising name in the Epstein black book? John Cleese.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1508273-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book-redacted.html

Two other weird bedfellows in there:

 

Edited to say that Chris Evans actually IS in there, so he might have met The Bake.

Thomas

Is it possible the black book was just a list of people whose autographs he wanted? Or, in at least one case, football stickers?


Bennett Brauer

Isn't "Epstein's black book" actually Ghislaine Maxwell's contact book though? One of the reasons Epstein glommed on to her was that she was so well-connected socially.