Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
xjsdriver said:
Stop trying to defend the indefensible - we're not talking about 1275 here, but 21st century Britain, where Dodgy Epstein has already pleaded guilty to tampering with kids (however close to adulthood they may have been - they we're NOT and we have a line in the sand which he chose to cross). If Andy's been f
king kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!
Actually assuming he has shagged a 17 year old,which arguably doesn't comply with local US age of consent rules,which are all about 'age difference' not a girl who is 'too young' per se,then the police obviously have the choice of extrading him to face trial there.Assuming he is convicted that would at least probably have the win win result of changing the ridiculous double standards ageist,agephobic US age of consent laws,in addition to stopping the similar moves towards such a policy here,pdq.Which considering the 'implications' in this case would probably apply retrospectively regarding those convicted.king kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!As for 21st Century Britain no it isn't 'illegal' for anyone to shag a 17 ( or 16 ) year old in terms of age of consent.Except in the case of those who are over 18 and in a 'position of trust'.As shown in the previous examples which I've posted.Or of course unless the girl in question is working as a hooker in which case if it is proven that Andy has shagged a 17 year old hooker here or in the states he is obviously f
ked more than she is.Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 3rd January 22:23
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 3rd January 22:31
XJ Flyer said:
Actually assuming he has shagged a 17 year old,which arguably doesn't comply with local US age of consent rules,which are all about 'age difference' not a girl who is 'too young' per se,then the police obviously have the choice of extrading him to face trial there.Assuming he is convicted that would at least probably have the win win result of changing the ridiculous double standards ageist,agephobic US age of consent laws,in addition to stopping the similar moves towards such a policy here,pdq.Which considering the 'implications' in this case would probably apply retrospectively regarding those convicted.
I'm not sure anything would even come of it.Paul Walker was 33 when he allegedly started dating his 16 year old girlfriend.
R Kelly was 27 when he married 15 year old Aaliyah.
And then there was that 50yr old Green Mile actor who married the 16yr old.
All definitely more questionable than what's alleged here yet none of them faced any consequences. R Kelly was even acquitted, and they had him on video pissing on a 14yr old!
xjsdriver said:
Stop trying to defend the indefensible - we're not talking about 1275 here, but 21st century Britain, where Dodgy Epstein has already pleaded guilty to tampering with kids (however close to adulthood they may have been - they we're NOT and we have a line in the sand which he chose to cross). If Andy's been fking kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!
I'm not trying to defend anything.king kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!I was pointing out the futility of taking the "it doesn't run in my family" moral high ground.....when in actual fact, you have no idea.
I resent the fact that you are implying i'm defending underage sex or child abuse (a common tactic for those unable to hold an actual adult conversation) - and as a result have reported your post.
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 3rd January 22:38
Moonhawk said:
xjsdriver said:
Stop trying to defend the indefensible - we're not talking about 1275 here, but 21st century Britain, where Dodgy Epstein has already pleaded guilty to tampering with kids (however close to adulthood they may have been - they we're NOT and we have a line in the sand which he chose to cross). If Andy's been fking kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!
I'm not trying to defend anything, just pointing out the futility of taking the "it doesn't run in my family" moral high ground.....when in actual fact - you know no such thing.king kids who happen to be underage - then he should go to jail - end of!!!Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 3rd January 22:49
XJ Flyer said:
xjsd seems to be under the common misunderstanding that US type age of consent laws apply here.IE adulthood is not the relevant age definition in determining age of consent here regardless of any age difference.
Which is why my mid 20's father never went to jail for the 'crime' of being with my under 21 year old mother in the early 1950's and its also why many GI's didn't go to jail for taking under 18 let alone under 21 year old British girls home to the states as brides.
do you know the story of Jerry Lee and his 13 year old Cousin and wife?Which is why my mid 20's father never went to jail for the 'crime' of being with my under 21 year old mother in the early 1950's and its also why many GI's didn't go to jail for taking under 18 let alone under 21 year old British girls home to the states as brides.
A few things
I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
johnxjsc1985 said:
XJ Flyer said:
xjsd seems to be under the common misunderstanding that US type age of consent laws apply here.IE adulthood is not the relevant age definition in determining age of consent here regardless of any age difference.
Which is why my mid 20's father never went to jail for the 'crime' of being with my under 21 year old mother in the early 1950's and its also why many GI's didn't go to jail for taking under 18 let alone under 21 year old British girls home to the states as brides.
do you know the story of Jerry Lee and his 13 year old Cousin and wife?Which is why my mid 20's father never went to jail for the 'crime' of being with my under 21 year old mother in the early 1950's and its also why many GI's didn't go to jail for taking under 18 let alone under 21 year old British girls home to the states as brides.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2083951/Chelsy-...
TheSnitch said:
A few things
I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
^ This.I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
XJ Flyer said:
TheSnitch said:
A few things
I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
^ This.I have seen several references to society supposedly becoming less tolerant of a significant age gap between couples, and the Charles and Di example trotted out
Charles was roughly 12 and a half years older than Diana. Seriously, that is bugger all. There was a ten year gap between me and my partner and it literally was never even a matter for comment. I can honestly say that other than having slightly different tastes in music, we were contemporaries in every sense. I know two very happily married couples with greater than a 20 year age difference where the same applies. Sometimes these things are relative - a 20 year age difference might seem like a lot when one party is only 20 years old, but by the time they are 40 it might seem utterly irrelevant.
Secondly, there seems still to be confusion over paedophilia, age of consent and relationships where there is an age difference.
Paedophiles have an abnormal sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. I say abnormal because it is. The changes which occur during the biological processes of sexual maturation include changes designed to attract a mate. Society imposes an age of consent in order to ensure that young adults are mature enough to make an informed and responsible choice and to protect them from exploitation, and this differs from one country and circumstance to another. For example, in this country if an older adult in in a position of trust, such as a teacher, they are committing an offence if they have sex with a young person in their charge, even if that young person is over the age of consent but under 18.
But no man who has sex with a fully biologically mature 17 year old woman is a paedophile, regardless of any imposed age of consent issues which might apply.
Nor is it in some way perverted for a significantly older adult to be sexually attracted to a much younger, sexually mature adult. That's called ''nature''. This idea that a 60 year old man being attracted to a 25 year old woman in some way makes him a 'pervert' is total nonsense. Likewise, younger women are often attracted to much older men for a whole host of reasons, many of them rooted in evolution.
Strocky said:
You abide with the local laws or you don't, it's that simple
It's not quite that straightforward these days.For example - the UK age of consent law applies to UK citizens travelling abroad in situations where the local age of consent is lower (e.g. France (15), Spain (13) etc).
If a UK citizen has sex with somebody below the UK age of consent - then despite the fact that the person they have sex with is at or above the local age of consent - the UK citizen can still be prosecuted for underage sex upon their return to the UK.
In situations where the local age of consent is higher than the UK's - the local age of consent (as you would expect) takes precedence.
vonuber said:
Why is everyone ignoring the coercion aspects of this?
I've not even started on that side of the debate yet.....just been lining up the usual suspects and letting them dig themselves into deeper and deeper holes about how appropriate, or not - an age difference is. I was about to continue along the lines of so would it be appropriate to coerce a person above the age of consent to conduct in sexual activity? Let's see who'll bite......
xjsdriver said:
vonuber said:
Why is everyone ignoring the coercion aspects of this?
I've not even started on that side of the debate yet.....just been lining up the usual suspects and letting them dig themselves into deeper and deeper holes about how appropriate, or not - an age difference is. I was about to continue along the lines of so would it be appropriate to coerce a person above the age of consent to conduct in sexual activity? Let's see who'll bite......
Assuming we're talking about prostitution in whatever form then,as I said,'that' would be a totally different issue with a statutory at least 18 age of consent limit here or in the states.
The relevant bit in all cases being that someone shagging a 17 year old isn't a paedophile wether it be here or in the US wether it be normal consentual relationship or a prostitution type one.
What it could be is the ( relatively ) far less serious one of a trafficking or other type of vice offence and/or possibly including the charge of statutory rape.Anything which tries to mix the two totally different types of offence demeans and misrepresents the seriousness of the definition of a paedophile offence v a potential statutory rape one.
In which case,as I said,'if' it was ever proven that Andrew had a 'prostitutional' type relationship with a girl who was under the age of consent for such a business type relationship,that would obviously be a case of the ( very ) serious offence of statutory rape in any common sense view.Which seems to be the ( possible ) issue and question related to what is being alleged in this case.
But 'not' the even far more serious offence of rape let alone the even far more serious one of paedophile.
In which case none of which definitions fit your ideas related to any alleged 'coersion'/'force' ( IE non statutory rape ) regardless of the age/age difference issue.
The conclusion being that,at worse,Andrew has a 'possible' 'potential' question/allegation of statutory rape,related to a 'possible' allegation of a prostitutional relationship with a 17 year old girl to answer.Or at best a 'possible' 'potential' allegation of statutory rape related to the ridiculous double standards ageist/agephobic US age of consent laws based on the age difference of the man not the age of the girl.In which case the US police know where to find him but obviously,so far,seem to have chosen to not issue an arrest/extradition warrant for whatever reason.
vonuber said:
Why is everyone ignoring the coercion aspects of this?
Use of force ( rape ) isn't the same thing as statutory rape assuming the issue is just one of a prostitutional relationship with someone under the age of consent for such a prostitutional type of relationship.Assuming that the possible allegation is one of prostitution with a girl of 17 then that is bad enough from Andrew's case point of view without trying to brand the issue with the much worse unwarranted claims of rape and/or paedophile.In all cases innocent until proven guilty would apply as usual.In which case it seems strange why the allegations concerned didn't involve police and court action. As for Andrew,so far,I'd give him the benefit of the doubt by seeing it just a middle aged bloke who's been unlucky in the marriage line and went looking for another chance in life and who unfortunately thought he might have found it.But which unfortunately turned out to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong type of girl in the catastrophically wrong social scene.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 4th January 02:59
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 4th January 03:18
Has this girl alleged rape? Or penetrative sex? I thought she was doing 'erotic massage', which I assumed was a massage with a happy ending hand job......
So your getting a massage from some fit young thing that appears to be an employee of the billionaire your staying with.
She's very friendly and flirtatious, very pretty and quite mature looking. She starts do a few inappropriate things (as girls that give 'happy endings' tend to do to gauge your interest)...... As an employee whose job is to give massages, you assume she's an adult.
What do you do next? It appears to be consensual, you're not forcing her to touch you. She lets it known that she's willing to do this.....
Do you:
Question her age, and then, if she answers honestlyas 17' whip out our iPad to look up the age of consent for your locality, because you need to make sure that its the same as your normal country.
Or
Lie back and enjoy the experience, thank her and perhaps show some appreciation for the service?
So your getting a massage from some fit young thing that appears to be an employee of the billionaire your staying with.
She's very friendly and flirtatious, very pretty and quite mature looking. She starts do a few inappropriate things (as girls that give 'happy endings' tend to do to gauge your interest)...... As an employee whose job is to give massages, you assume she's an adult.
What do you do next? It appears to be consensual, you're not forcing her to touch you. She lets it known that she's willing to do this.....
Do you:
Question her age, and then, if she answers honestlyas 17' whip out our iPad to look up the age of consent for your locality, because you need to make sure that its the same as your normal country.
Or
Lie back and enjoy the experience, thank her and perhaps show some appreciation for the service?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff