Please answer this question firstly with a number. What proportion of men - who had they been born into wealth and status - would have sex with a 17 year old attractive girl whom they’d never met before?

80-90 percent

Well yes they are. Just like they are supposed as reassure themselves women aren’t intoxicated.

it’s almost like the law expects people to get to know each other even a bit before they start shoving their dick in!

What does history tell us ?

People constantly lean into this. Why? Criminal action has never been taken against Andrew in the uk or the us.

Something being illegal is the lowest form of ethics. If you will do anything as long as it’s not illegal you’ll generally be an awful person who skates the line and uses a criminal prosecution framework to make personal decisions - as someone said above, an alley cat.

but regardless, the current anti trafficking laws are more recent and seem to reflect common sense, and the move towards criminalising the male “customer” of trafficked women or sex workers

With wealth, status and almost guaranteed protection from any fall out 99.9%.

Any straight male with opportunity at least 80%.

@Bambamhoohoo yeah I was just a bit confused if something specific had made you make that comment

I'm also confused why everyone is talking about trafficking - I thought the OP was just talking about whether or not the men would sleep with a consenting 17-year-old given the opportunity.

and men are now supposed to check that the woman wasn't trafficked?

I don’t know- but I did say they didn’t care 20 years ago.

That I did not know. Date of law v date of offence? Also USA or UK? I can't find any info in a quick search other that Giuffre suing Windsor for sexual assault.
Obviously it's all awful.

@Bambamhoohoo nuns were doing that 20 years ago?!

I’m not sure it really matters- I’m happy to say playboy bunnies were trafficked and groomed, yes. It was not recognised in the same way 20 years ago but what difference does it make?

20 years ago nuns didn’t care that they were slinging dead babies into mass graves- it doesn’t mean we can’t have a mature reflection on it now and realise how wrong it was surely?

It’s doesn’t matter whether the man knows or not. The law now puts the onus on the man to assure himself the woman is not trafficked

eta taking a woman to a different juristruction for sex is trafficking

The girls must have appeared willing.
Trafficking and grooming wasn't well known about 20 years go.
20 years ago was the time of the Playboy mags and Bunny Girls.

Did any of these men think the girls were trafficked or groomed?

Did they see them as anything other than escort girls, who were there of there own free will being wined and dined and paid?

He’s not been properly tested though, he needs to bin the lovely friends, get himself some millionaire paedophile friends to hang out with regularly, normalising it, with their own island bring in some trafficked young girls, probably throw some booze and drugs into the equation and then see how his resolve holds up.

I think given the right circumstances a reasonably high percentage of those who we think of as good men would, especially if they believed they were protected, untouchable and the girls compliant and on the surface appeared willing.

in that environment they would easily brush aside thoughts, or facts, of how the girls got there, how young they were, and their welfare.

Was he accused of that? Not defending, thought the crime was sexual assault.

Of course but that would assume that the bloke had the gumption to realise the girl had been trafficked. Or care.
But I looked it up; Ms Giuffre says the duke sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was under the age of 18. (BBC website)
Was the crime sexual assault not trafficking?

I would say roughly the same. I think actually this is more realistic than most on this thread.

Unfortunately I think you’re being unreasonable, but only because the number would be much higher. Even some men in couples/married of they thought it was without consequences.

I'd think 10% might be gay.

10% might have morals, character or qualms.

15% might have E.D.

So, only 65%.

I'd like to hear that answer from men themselves! I think probably most would. The age of consent here in the UK is 16 so they wouldn't technically be doing anything illegal (obviously not talking about trafficking). It's not paedophilia, as that is sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Rightly or wrongly, men are attracted to much younger women, it's biology. When I was 17 in 1980, I had men in their 30s to 50s trying to sleep with me! I was a very immature, naive 17 year old too. I'm so glad this behaviour is being called out more today.

Little bit confused about these posts. The crime Andrew committed was trafficking. Age is unrelated to this.

even so, what difference does it make what age you can marry in NY and Dc? That has nothing to do with what happened to VG.

I'd say pretty much all single men who had an attractive woman making it obvious she wanted sex would be likely to go for it.

This would be especially so if there were alcohol/drugs involved and the young woman was dressed up looking older than 17. The legal age for sexual consent is 16.

About 85% I would imagine.

I don't think you need to have been born into wealth and status. The behaviour of pop stars in the past may not bear examination.
Percentage of men? 90%+

Trafficking is a crime.

Very high percentage maybe 90%. There is a huge problem with the messages men get from other men when they are being raised as boys. I think the vast majority of men carry a degree of misogyny and women too.