I degregistered from here a while ago, although I still lurk a bit to read some threads. The absolute misogyny, misunderstanding of the way some young women are used and abused, the defence of men who enough have wealth and status to use young women is so appalling it has made me reregister to comment. Any comment I make is not going to change anything, I may be wrong, I may be torn to shreds by those who think 17 year olds become willing sex workers so they can have some nice clothes.
If you have been abused (as many previous posters have eloquently said, citing their own experiences) you don't know how to 'say no'. If you have been groomed you don't know how to 'say no'. More importantly, it doesn't matter in a wider sense whether you have been groomed or abused. Whatever a young woman's life has been like, no middle aged man should be trying to coerce very young women and girls into being raped. Because rape is what it is. A year above the age of consent in the UK, with a man many years older who can offer them things to sleep with him. It is so easy for these men to be persuasive. They can and do make sure they approach young women in a way that makes them feel they consent. Only when these women mature do they really realise what happened. Then they are liars. Women say well they consented and were happy to have the glamorous life. No condemnation of the men who made these girls think they wanted that.
Any man who does that should be vilified by society. No decent, caring, thoughtful, normal man would do that. And women should stop apologising for these men. Any shred of empathy and you would understand that a 17 year old is never really a willing partner with a 40 year old rich man. And any 40 year old rich man who persuades a 17 year old girl, by whatever means, is not a man anyone should be defending.
As for Andrew. He is the epitome of this type of man. Stupid, privileged beyond belief, and probably rather glad his position meant he didn't even have to recruit and groom girls before taking advantage of them. He is a natural product of the untouchable status afforded to all the royal family.
Finally to the poster who said he may have PTSD after the Falklands, and that somehow has clouded his judgement regarding sex with very young women. That is one of the most offensive things I have ever heard. I know loads who served down south. Who were affected to varying degrees by their experiences. I don't know any of them who feel the need when they were 40 to sleep with 17 years olds. Any 17 year old, vulnerable, consenting, trafficked, willing, any. Don't tar ex servicemen with that brush. Don't say my DH and so many others I know would use that excuse to abuse young women. (Coincidently he was never in any danger, and was universally hated in the RN. All 'veterens' I know can still sweat, they don't regard themselves as veterans an would never say anything about it with strangers, they don't broadcast it).