To be the most shocked about the women possibly involved in it all

Some were younger but a lot of them were above the legal age of consent.

I was abused by my mother. It’s much less common than men doing horrible things, of course but I think it’s more common than people realise. People like to think it’s just men doing these things but it really isn’t. I think abusive women are often just better at hiding it. My Mum was very upper middle class, organised high profile literary events and was well known in certain circles. She was also an alcoholic and schizophrenic. People don’t ever want to admit multiple things can be true about the same person.

Who keep saying women…these were children

I also asked about the boyfriend and it said : In plain-English summaries of his declaration: He saw her being picked up by much older men in cars, she told him she had to go give “massages”, she would return with cash, and he felt something was wrong.

Maybe he saw it as escort work, but otoh massages wouldn't necessarily have been interpreted as sex work back then. And it should be remembered they were both teenagers at this point, adults in that situation would more likely realise more possibly.

That's an interesting question that a court would need to battle with. Her boyfriend knew that she was having sex with men for money, yes. Did he regard that as abuse though? If I recall correctly, he later testified on her behalf to prove that she was being trafficked but I suspect at the time he just saw it as escorts work which funded their lifestyle. They were both taking a lot of drugs at the time and she was outwardly getting on with life and entirely free to make her own decisions so I presume he didn't recognise it as abuse.

Did her boyfriend know she was being abused?

I was abused by my mother. It’s much less common than men doing horrible things, of course but I think it’s more common than people realise. People like to think it’s just men doing these things but it really isn’t. I think abusive women are often just better at hiding it. My Mum was very upper middle class, organised high profile literary events and was well known in certain circles. She was also an alcoholic and schizophrenic. People don’t ever want to admit multiple things can be true about the same person.

Im inclined to think that is an oversimplification. It seems to go against the idea of evolution to me. If, historically, we were never anything but brutish, we would have died out long ago. The capacity for cooperation, love, fairness etc is imo built in just as much as violence and self preservation..You dont go from hunter gatherer to farmer just by being constantly violent. Those people were.more sophisticated than you think. Read your history and prehistory.

No, she had her own flat and lived with her boyfriend. She lived a pretty normal life - cooking, cleaning, shopping, going to the pub, friends, family etc. At one point she stopped working for Epstein and got a job in a restaurant but a few months later he asked her to go back so she did. Epstein paid for her to go to Thailand, on her own, to do a beauty/massage course and she met a man there, fell in love and never went back, (that man became her husband). She called Epstein to tell him she wasn't going back and he just said ok and she never heard from him again.

All of this doesn't make her less of a victim but it does make it much more difficult to convict anyone. How do you prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that she was forced when she was actually free to say no. She voluntarily went back every time. She had been groomed to think it was ok and possibly even normal.

With the Andrew situation related to Guiffre, if there is an offence, it would be almost impossible to convict her because she, on the face of it, did it voluntarily. She was excited by the fact she was meeting a prince and asked for the famous photo as she knew her mum was a big fan of the royal family. She has never claimed there was any physical force with Andrew.

This is not the kind of grooming that involved force, violence and captivity. For Virginia at least, it was entirely mental. She was physically but not mentally free.

This is all in her book. It is difficult reading put helps to explain the situation and wipes out the vast majority of the assumptions and made up stories that appear on here and other social media forums.

I think you're making the mistake of confusing reasons with excuses.
People wanting to discuss the specific motivation of women involved in these crimes, rather than throwing the lazy and statistically unsupported "see! They're just the same as men! Just as evil!" soundbites, are not giving women 'a free pass'.
As PP said most studies on these behaviours have been conducted on men, for obvious reasons. Women who contribute to these crimes generally have different motivators and different histories leading up to them, and so should be examined separately if we are to understand with a view to prevention.
Patriarchal context and male power over them is one theory people have brought to the table. People don't have to agree with it of course. But at least it's a theory to start a conversation and more helpful than 'they're just evil'.
I means, what is 'evil', are some people born evil? They are evil new babies and their destiny is set? Can't be cured, can't be prevented? Or is 'evil' something that develops as a result of life experiences, mental and psychological health, abuse, societal context and their position within it?
If people are going to accuse anyone wanting to ask these questions as making excuses then how are we to ever understand?

I was a Serb in Serbia, so I got off very, very lightly.

I don’t think the underlying factors are different. Both rely on a removal of ordinary restrictions, and both rely on environment providing opportunity to act in a way you wouldn’t have done in a different one.

I don't really think that women are more likely to be empathetic or caring. If some men are willing to overlook the humanity of some women for their own benefit, some women are as well. Not as often for sex. But manipulation, greed, cruelty, power,women are in no way immune to these things.

Yes true, there has been progression but somehow the pretence of moral superiority that goes on now by so many of the most powerful people in the western world is just as sickening it’s own way as the barefaced misogyny of the past/in other parts of the world. The hypocrisy, collusion and enablement are their own brand of bleak and terrifying. Not minimising the experiences of women in other times and places. I’m incredibly thankful that I’m not one of them but I certainly don’t celebrate where we are today.

No, but that is exactly what I'm saying. Morality, fairness, kindness- call it what you like, it's the product of self-interest and self-preservation. When it stops serving you, individually, and maybe your immediate community, it becomes redundant.

Have you read Hobbes? As this is his entire thesis. We all give up some of our individual autonomy to a higher authority (in his conception a king because he was writing at a time when the idea of kingship was highly contested) and that authority enforces law for the common good. And that's the basis of morality. It's how he explains the emergence of the polity - or, as he calls it, the commonwealth.

I have read my history, and my political philosophy as it happens, and a bit of anthropology too, so this isn't an entirely uninformed viewpoint

I know. I wonder where individual experience of spirutual universality would come into all that. Hard to get into a philosophical duscussion on a thread really.

I think everyone in his circle was groomed or conditioned into believing it was an acceptable setup for a wealthy man to hire beautiful young woman to be assistants and eye candy. I mean - why not? Companies hire young women into that role all the time—think saleswoman in luxury goods or private banking, for example.
Many of the women were aspiring models and it was on paper a great opportunity to get jobs and make connections with powerful people. The pay and perks added glamour.
Epstein didn’t want to hire sex workers, he very specifically wanted young healthy women with natural bodies and faces, no silicon or fillers. He wanted to replicate a trope as old as the ages- the young innocent beauty in thrall and submitting to older and powerful men.
The women helping find new victims were all part of the toxicity but in the moment it probably seemed more eccentric than illegal. Don’t forget he was extremely careful not to deal with under 18s after doing time, So these are adult women willingly working for him —- so to the outside eye, who might not stop to consider there was a trafficking angle, could probably be quite comfortable with it all.

Ermm … just look at the abuse(sometimes even sexual) perpetrated by nuns against young women/children all over the world, the abuse perpetrated in the old eastern block orphanages, the midwives that were selling babies by the dozen.

I’m not saying women are as bad as men and I will never say that. However, they do have the capacity to be. Ignoring that is being part of the problem.

I used to work in child protection. Women are often involved with child abuse, either directly or by colluding.