Brilliant article on Epstein by Helen Rumbelow in the Times TW Distressing content

Amelia Gentleman on the subject:

Sex and snacks, but no seat at the table: the role of women in Epstein’s sordid men’s club www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/07/sex-and-snacks-but-no-seat-at-the-table-the-role-of-women-in-epsteins-sordid-mens-club?CMP=share_btn_url

Lots has been said of his childhood. Born and raised in Brooklyn. Relatively normal. In his 20s it is reported he showed an unhealthy attraction to young girls while a teacher (how he got his start in life with Bear Stearns).

He is a man who had an unhealthy attraction to young girls who got lucky in his employment, got involved in government (CIA) work in the ‘80s, then met Maxwell and the rest is the horrific files. All said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were abuses going back through to his 20s. He just became more brazen as he deemed himself untouchable up until the very end.

Does anyone know anything about Epstein upbringing and childhood? It would be very interesting to look at that and think about how he turned into a truly evil man with such misogynistic attitudes. We have heard a bit about GM but nothing at all about him.

Under dressed women are slags. Modestly dressed women are a challenge. And both therefore porn worthy.
There are apps to remove clothes from modestly dressed women (and children). And apps to add "modest/trad" clothing to more skimpily clothed women. FFS.

Women with Arabic features wearing hijabs is also a porn category 😥

God what an utterly distressing, harrowing article.

It makes me so sad for the victims, and so fucking angry that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE FILTHY ANIMALS will get away with it. What the fuck can we do?

Hijab westers also get harrassed. I know some people on here have concerns about the garment from a feminist perspective. But its also makes some men angry just because... The assumption that they should be having any opinion on what a woman they dont know is wearing in a public space is astounding. Let alone the anger. Women have the right not to show men their hair if they don't want to. So women have had their scarfs ripped of before.

Plus, there are loads of sexy nun costumes. Nuns are sexy because they dress chastely/aren't supposed to have sex. There is nothing women can wear do that can't be considered sexually titillating by men. We are such teases!

Yes but a lot of the names (not just victims) are still redacted so those people are protected.

Also the reaction seems slightly lopsided... When Mandleson was appointed ambassador I had a very long rant about how his character/clear admiration for a sex offender would come back and bite Starmer. And it did... But the media has been so fixated on Starmer it's diverting attention from the bigger problems- just for example Farage was in the Epstein files himself, and is just as in thrall to Trump (who absolute best case scenario has only raped adult women). So, people like Farage are showing the same character flaws that Mandleson was showing in 2024. But if those flaws made Mandleson unsuited to the position of ambassador (and Starmer in the wrong for not seeing it) the same flaws should make Farage unsuited as a politician/possible Prime Minister.

I don't want to make it just a political thing. Noam Chomsky was in the files FFS and the left has had some scandals in its time. Sex offenders exist across the political spectrum. It's that the media has a fascination for certain types of people. They loved Mandleson before he became Ambassador (he was always being interviewed) and the love having Farage on now.

I think the same qualities that make someone like Mandleson/Farage cosy up to the likes of Epstein and Trump - (idolising the rich and powerful for their wealth/power alone, constantly climbing the ladder, trying to be in the inner circle of everything, being quite exciting in an amoral way) also make them catnip for newspaper editors/TV execs etc. Mandleson was seen as a wise authority because of the relationships he cultivated. It was an asset not a liability. And that same mindset exists. Money/power or proximity to money/power = worth/intelligence. Which generates more wealth/power.

Plus,.of course, there is the possibility some of the redacted men are owners of newspapers or social media companies etc. It would explain some things.

It isn’t a possibility. It is certain. There are emails as clear as day. So much is clear, minors (babies!), rape, murder (whoops), etc. it’s disgusting the lengths of depravity they went to.

"least of all any man in a position of authority" Exactly. All power corrupts, etc.

As far as I can remember, didn't a couple have a bunch of adopted children, one of whom told mummy that daddy/stepdaddy did things to her in the attic. So, the child was pretty much locked up for life, to treat her mental illness, for saying such a thing.

Later, another one of the adopted daughters became married to daddy/stepdaddy, and it was ok because it was not really a relative, and it was a pure and innocent love story between a barely legal girl and an elderly man/stepdaddy.

Nobody seems to have joined the dots and wondered if the marriage of the second daughter/ stepdaughter to daddy/ stepdaddy might suggest that the first daughter was not lying, about the man, and should never have been locked up for telling the truth about his activities with her in the attic

Old men, or their ex- child -brides, may tend to have personal reasons to convince themselves there is nothing amiss with whoever wants whatever contact with underage girls.

This. Wear a wedding ring at all times, especially if not married, especially if still very young.
And find a way to disguise any 'inflammatory' uniform, if possible. (Better to be a nun or a hijab wearer, than a schoolgirl, or a nurse. )

Sarah Ferguson took her own young daughters to tea with Epstein I think. But they probably weren't in any danger of being groomed/exploited. That was for other girls who didn't matter.

Yes it’s kind of awful to see women with this same attitude. Soon Yi Previn, wife of Woody Allen is shown to think the 15 year old girl who reported Anthony Weiner for sexting with her was manipulative and humiliated him.

Similarly if a woman's male partner steps out of line, it's her who gets punished for not 'controlling' him. I've experienced this a few times.

And the corollary to this is that if the man doesn't matter his possessions can be stolen or treated as junk.

And if the man is actively seen as the enemy, defiling his possessions is a great way to demonstrate disrespect.

Women's bodies and lives are used as tokens for men to keep score with each other.

In the patriarchal mind we gain our value as possessions of men. If the man matters, his possessions are treated respectfully.

I couldn't agree more.

My own DD's male school peers have earned themselves the same negative general view from her and many of her female peers.

Start assuming the worst because that's the balance of probability. Then, revise carefully and on a case by case basis, if necessary and beneficial to you.

Women and girls don't owe males of any age the benefit of the doubt. In fact, that would be statistically unwise.

I have often thought this lately. There's a lot to be said for shame. Especially when it leads to you actually feeling ashamed of your own behaviour after it's been pointed out to you.

We've gone from one extreme to the other. Only, on balance, I'd say that the current extreme 'anything goes, anywhere, all the time' is considerably more harmful.

The weird cultural concept that "Catholic school girl"= sexy is gross and probably comes from the idea that they were less attainable or a challenge or something. And it's something that was propogated by TV shows/films/jokes made by adults as well.

Also, as I said, out group. IRS always possible to label a group of people as the outgroup of you want to do so. It's why the solution isn't a more homogeneous society.

Maybe so but as a convent schoolgirl we were viewed as fair game by boys from other schools in the city. There almost seemed to be a competition to see how far they could go with lewd and very offensive comments, trying to grope you on the bus etc.
If you tried complaining you were labelled a spoilsport and worse or simply disbelieved.

YY I agree with you about the in and out groups and was what I was getting at when I said “women that they don’t know” more accurately that they don’t care about or have any feelings about.

Yes, just being a woman is often enough all on its own. But abusive men do tend to sort women/girls into in groups and out groups (often with ever changing boundaries depending on convenience and the women's behaviour.) Sarah Ferguson took her own young daughters to tea with Epstein I think. But they probably weren't in any danger of being groomed/exploited. That was for other girls who didn't matter.

I'm not explaining myself properly but it seems like for women/girls/children in general humanity is conditional?

I agree too.
I’m old and my view of men in general is so jaded.
From bitter experience I would never trust the majority of men and least of all any man in a position of authority.

Humans are a predatory species, especially the males.

Yes and no. Being prey never ends. What peters out is the overt leering:, "That thing walking over there may be too young to be on guard, and it's female, so let's attack it. What else does it exist for?"

A baby is never too young to be safe from predators, and will still not be safe in the geriatric ward, and in the morgue, and at the undertaker.

During the 'invisible' years, women are merely assumed to possibly have some alternative uses. to justify their insignificant existences. But, given the chance, and in the absence of anything else, they can still be used as orifices. Ask Pelicot.