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

I am disappointed to be hearing more about the women than the men. The women, GM etc, behaved appallingly for whatever reasons, but it seems we know more of their names and more of the names of the victims than we do of the names of the men.

I think we also need to bear in mind that JE groomed people incrementally. I know a couple
of people (academics) who went to his island for a very tedious lunch where they were astonished at how much money he appeared to have given how stupid he was. They did note that a group were whisked away over coffee to look at ‘the art’ which they didn’t think anything of at the time, but now wonder. I expect JE was very very clever at sniffing out people who would
compromise themselves for money or glamour and making them more and more complicit in what he was doing until it seemed ‘normal’ and that they were too involved themselves to withdraw.

Somehow they seem blinded by all the money, and gloss over terrible things .I suspect they didnt want to be the "Whistle blower" and tended to sweep it under the carpet.Not the same at all. but David Hamilton the 70s DJ.said if he had gone to management about JS ,of whom he had suspicions ,he would have got the sack! Many others suspected as well I expect.

The idea of sisterhood has been massively oversold to the point where we expect women to naturally look out for and empathise more with other women.

Women have always been happy to throw other women under the bus for economic and/or social reasons without any inherent "evil" at play. I'd say that, like men, women have always cleaved closer to class, in particular, than sex when it comes to affinity and loyalty.

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.

My DM is one of those. Seems to hate her own sex and has always revered men, put them on a pedestal and obeyed.

I've often thought why, but cba to ask her (too late now, she has dementia) but I've never thought that could be the reason...that it offered her 'protection'. Makes sense.

The problem is people fawn and respect wealthy people regardless of their characters. They seem to forget that to get that wealth it often involves exploiting people. It is just part of a greater problem.

I can’t see that Beatrice and Eugenie knew nothing at all about this, you don’t grow up with two parents like that and not get influenced in some way, or see nothing . I was surprised that they were invited by William and Kate for Xmas.

Because most of the women had been abused themselves and were therefore also victims. In her autobiography VG says she did procure girls for JE etc, despite feeling very guilty about doing so, because the consequences for her would be more abuse if she didn’t.

I think with respect to GM, she was in love with Epstein and was willing to do anything to keep him happy and remain in his life. He was quickly done with her but she knew if she gave in to her demands he would keep her around. Probably a similar vibe with her dad. Epstein was clearly a master manipulator, charismatic and evil.

I also think given her privileged background that she saw the trafficked women and girls as less than, other, unimportant and disposable.

I think AMW is a very useful idiot who didn’t think his rich and powerful friends would betray him, because he is truly very stupid.

All of this is inexcusable, awful, evil behaviour that is unfathomable. It goes to show how contemptuous the rich and powerful are for those they consider to be beneath them. They wouldn’t allow their daughters to be treated like this, but poor people’s daughters? Well they’re fair game. 🤢

Absolutely.

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?

The general sexualisation and exploitation of "women" (including children aged 16 & 17) was so normalised at this time. The "grid girls" in formula 1, the bikini babes that seem to have been included in the price of every luxury yacht, even the sexualised presentation of flight assistants trying to do an important safety job. It was even commonplace for regular offices to insist that women wore high heels!

Not that overt abuse or violence was ever normalised. But there was a general feeling that plenty of women went into sex work with their eyes open, and got a good deal from it. I can imagine plenty of people not actually seeing anything horrific with their own eyes, and choosing carefully what they wanted to believe.

But of course there must have also been plenty of people who knew the exact details, and who acted to enable that. And I'll admit that it does hit me harder knowing that some of these people were women.

All people, however evil, had a female mother.
Just goes to show everyone is different.

A similar amount of women who won’t report being abused by men I guess?

Totally agree. Anyone who thinks all women are delicate little flowers and always the victim is being very naive. In my 65 years I have met plenty of females who I would give a very wide berth to

Women can be bad too you know. It’s not always men

I think Gislaine was in thrall to Epstein. They had formerly been lovers, I beleive

Women fawn all over rich and powerful men 🫤

I read a quote from VG's book today which said that the victims reported, it was investigated and in the end they were told nothing more could be done and the only way to make JE pay was to get $$ from him. So that is why so many victims went down the path of seeking $$ from JE, DJT and others. And of course with $$ payouts, NDAs had to be signed, so many people were kept silent.

Sorry to read this. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been to live through something like that.

It is what I’ve always thought. You’re not acting in a vacuum. In situations of war, it becomes about survival and people find themselves doing what would previously have been unthinkable. The ‘Eat or be eaten’ (or run!) scenario.

I think the Epstein situation is different, though. Lots of people were involved but many more people weren’t, so you could leave without walking into a war zone. I agree you’d have to be a particular type of person to get caught up in it - mercenary, avaricious, capable of compartmentalising people into those who matter and those who don’t to name but a few.

I do think it’s interesting that some of his enablers were very high up in the corporate world, like that lawyer working for Goldman Sachs. I’ve seen dreadful things done in workplaces and I do wonder if the skills needed to most ruthlessly climb the greasy pole are transferable here - sycophancy, not rocking the boat, closing ranks to protect an organisation, the ability to disassociate from negative outcomes, even where those impacted are vulnerable and blameless. I’m thinking of the post office scandal, for example (not suggesting anyone there was involved with Epstein). If I recall correctly, their lead counsel decamped to Australia and refused to attend the inquiry…

From what I can see, a lot of people were terrified of him. Women in particular are brought up to please, not rock the boat. I imagine a lot of it was a case of don’t fuck with him, he’s dangerous. I think a lot of men
and women felt that way about him.

As above a lot of it is motivated by money & status, either achieving that or maintaining it. Women can be just as greedy as men.

Women can be just as greedy and ruthless as men in pursuit of the things they want, like money and power. It's a bit simplistic to think all women are naturally good and kind unless they've been "damaged" in some way by men - groomed, abused, manipulated.