to wonder if Jeffrey Epstein really is a paedophile

[GenuineQuery]

I have name changed for this because it's such an emotive subject, and folk are likely to be flamey (quite rightly too). And I am a wimp.

You'll have all seen in the news reference to Prince Andrew's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, almost universally described as 'the billionaire paedophile'.

When I read the newspaper reports I discovered that he had been convicted of procuring underage girls for sex, some of whom I understand (owing to US consent laws) were 17. Some, of course, were considerably younger: I understand the youngest to have been 14.

AIBU to think that this is not 'paedophilia'? That suggests to me an utterly unnatural, in fact downright evil, sexual preference. Finding post-pubescent girls and young women, who are presenting as adults in the physical essentials, seems to me to be a different matter.

I found myself becoming quite angry. Not because I felt sorry for Epstein (undoubtedly as immoral, sleazy, predatory and abusive a man as you could hope to find, and he well deserves his jail term and worse), but because labelling him a paedophile somehow detracts from quite how appalling, and how absolutely against every fibre of a normal person's nature, paedophilia is.

The article I saw was illustrated by a picture of Epstein with his arm around one of his 'child victims'. She was 17, nearly as tall as him, and very definitely a woman, not a child.

Just to reiterate (in case it gets lost in debate!) I am not saying tht what he did was right. On the contrary I would very much like the opportunity to kick his bollocks off. But I suppose what I think is: a sleazy old man fancying and preying on teenage girls is a revolting controlling abusive prick, but not a paedophile.

There. AIBU? I would genuinely like to know & don't know where else to raise the debate.

Thank you for posting Pag, esp. under those circumstances, and you continue to make me suspect that I have been thinking about it 'backwards' (ie from the perspective of the appallingness/unnaturalness of the act, rather than its impact on the victim).

I am sorry I appear weak-ass, and possibly you are right: however I suspected (rightly, as it turns out) that I would be written off my some as in some way condoning (at least being insufficiently appalled by) child abuse, and that is not something I want hanging around me on MN for the next few months.

glasnost you have a PM

pagwatch as usual your post is very eloquent and I so agree with you.

As for GQ name changing, well I have no issue with that. I think GQ you have brought up something for discussion, and you have made it clear, at least to me, that you find the Epstiens actions abhorrent. Fancy changing back to your usual name?

I do not think there is an emotionally ready young girl who is ready for a sexual relationship with an older man. I work in Education and have worked with scores of young people. In no way are they ready.

It is twisted and sick. Men who like young "nubile" girls are acting on dangerous, abusive urges.

This thread is making me think of the one about shaved vulvas, anyone remember that?

Well and here we are then. As I said earlier (and despite the fact that GQ is casting some doubt on the veracity of my post) I find the rape of a 14 year old to be equally as abhorrent as the rape of a three year old.

I also disagree that the term is being used to beef up the story about Prince Andrew. The term "Sexual Predator" or "Rapist" could equally be used and would be just as hard hitting IMO, but the term "Paedophile" is shorthand - just to make sure everyone knows that the people being abused by him are underage (and in terms of the 14 year old, really just a moment out of childhood) in one easy glance.

Berlosconi is a foul abuser as well (allegedly) but I think our press tend to use the paedophile term to indicate rape of an underage person (going by our laws of consent)

Genuine "please don't try to infer that I in some way condone these actions, or consider them less foul than you."

Yes, but you DO try to present one as somehow less of crime (therefore more "acceptable") than the other. Shoplifting maybe is a lesser crime than violent burglary. Grooming and having sex with 8 year old or 14 year old is the same crime in my book.

Berlusconi with a u is foul in sooooooooo many ways.

Fair enough GQ . I take your point.

Cross posted with loads.

By the way, I am in no way saying that the OP or TheCoalition are condoning the rape of young women at all.

Sorry, late with my reply...

nice one glasnost...clever.

Bemy - yes, you're right - I do. I consider it worse to sexually abuse a 3 year old than a 15 year old.

I'm going to need to think about why I think it's worse, and I am more than prepared to come back at some stage and admit to having been mistaken. Someone earlier made an absolutely excellent point about how I am evidence of a really awful chance in culture and how we have started to accept the sexualisation of youngsters, and I think she/he was probably right.

But I have to be honest: if I looked at picture of a toddler, and a picture of a young woman (as a 15 year old can quite reasonably be described to be, and indeed the same paper that used the 'paedophile' term went on to described one victim as a 'young woman', and imagined a man finding each one sexually appealing, I would find one more incomprehensible, more vile, more unnatural and more worthy of jail sentences in triple figures, than the other.

I am actually quite worried about being alone on this one . I am so used to the moral high ground I don't like it down here.

Lenin thanks: and yes, we do.

chance change in culture, sorry.

QuelleLeJeff - In the wider world outside MN someone who rapes a 3 year old IS considered much worse than someone who coerced underage girls into sexual acts without the use of violence. The use of the word paedophile IS designed to make this man look as bad as possible to the readers of the newspapers. If they wanted to minimise the nature of the offences they would talk about sex offences or some other term. Accurate terms make it harder to spin things.

So in your opinion OP, is it more ok if the said 14yr old has breasts and has started her periods than if she hadn't???

GQ we do have to stop and check ourselves and say 14/15 (and in many cases 16 y o too I might add), is still a kid, with a kids mentality, vulnerability and so on.

This has been a good thread and a good thinking point. I would not doubt your moral compass, you are here asking the questions. That is a good thing.

GQ

Forgive me but I'm not going to directly answer your post NotShort because I'm not going to get drawn into somehow describing what sort of abuse I think is 'ok', for goodness' sake. However you do make a good point(reflecting something said earlier) about the fact that it's not somehow cut and dried, as if people pop out fully formed and sexually aware at aged 16. I am painfully aware that a 17 year old could well be considerably less mentally and physically ready for a sexual relationship than a 16 year old (and that neither of them should be preyed upon by older men, despite both being legal).

Bemy ?!

Thank ongGak. Christ I'm glad I namechanged, cowardly or not!

Nope. I cannot agree with you at all Thecoalition and actually "IS considered much worse than someone who coerced underage girls into sexual acts without the use of violence" is minimising what he did to a 14 year old and just as bad as the accusation being levelled at the press of maximising what he did by calling it paedophilia.

Rape not "coercion" it is rape of a 14 year old.

what about 8 yo vs 13 yo or 13 yo (no periods, no chest) vs a curvy 11 yo?

thecoalition I feel like you are talking semnatics here, and I take your point, but I do still stand my ground when I say he should be termed a paedo by the press and society at large.

Also, the wider world is wrong, and it is the youth obsessed, sexy=good that makes the rape of a 14 seem like less than the rape of a 4 year old. Both are kids. Both should make one rage. If that is not the case then I feel that we have become somewhat conditioned to a very sexualised culture, one that deeply concerns me.

And, while he (epstein) should be villified, I want to know more about his victims and what the hell is their story and who is introducing them to him and so on?

In the case of Epstein it's important to remember that he paid of at least 17 other young women, or their parents. This wasn't a one off - it was an international ring.