Please answer this question firstly with a number. What proportion of men - who had they been born into wealth and status - would have sex with a 17 year old attractive girl whom they’d never met before?

[Zippyzoppy]

I don’t know the answer, but I’m upset to say that I’d put the number somewhere in the 30-40% range.

Was he accused of that? Not defending, thought the crime was sexual assault.

He’s not been properly tested though, he needs to bin the lovely friends, get himself some millionaire paedophile friends to hang out with regularly, normalising it, with their own island bring in some trafficked young girls, probably throw some booze and drugs into the equation and then see how his resolve holds up.

I think given the right circumstances a reasonably high percentage of those who we think of as good men would, especially if they believed they were protected, untouchable and the girls compliant and on the surface appeared willing.

in that environment they would easily brush aside thoughts, or facts, of how the girls got there, how young they were, and their welfare.

The girls must have appeared willing.
Trafficking and grooming wasn't well known about 20 years go.
20 years ago was the time of the Playboy mags and Bunny Girls.

Did any of these men think the girls were trafficked or groomed?

Did they see them as anything other than escort girls, who were there of there own free will being wined and dined and paid?

It’s doesn’t matter whether the man knows or not. The law now puts the onus on the man to assure himself the woman is not trafficked

eta taking a woman to a different juristruction for sex is trafficking

I’m not sure it really matters- I’m happy to say playboy bunnies were trafficked and groomed, yes. It was not recognised in the same way 20 years ago but what difference does it make?

20 years ago nuns didn’t care that they were slinging dead babies into mass graves- it doesn’t mean we can’t have a mature reflection on it now and realise how wrong it was surely?

@Bambamhoohoo nuns were doing that 20 years ago?!

That I did not know. Date of law v date of offence? Also USA or UK? I can't find any info in a quick search other that Giuffre suing Windsor for sexual assault.
Obviously it's all awful.

I don’t know- but I did say they didn’t care 20 years ago.

@Bambamhoohoo yeah I was just a bit confused if something specific had made you make that comment

I'm also confused why everyone is talking about trafficking - I thought the OP was just talking about whether or not the men would sleep with a consenting 17-year-old given the opportunity.

and men are now supposed to check that the woman wasn't trafficked?

With wealth, status and almost guaranteed protection from any fall out 99.9%.

Any straight male with opportunity at least 80%.

People constantly lean into this. Why? Criminal action has never been taken against Andrew in the uk or the us.

Something being illegal is the lowest form of ethics. If you will do anything as long as it’s not illegal you’ll generally be an awful person who skates the line and uses a criminal prosecution framework to make personal decisions - as someone said above, an alley cat.

but regardless, the current anti trafficking laws are more recent and seem to reflect common sense, and the move towards criminalising the male “customer” of trafficked women or sex workers

What does history tell us ?

Well yes they are. Just like they are supposed as reassure themselves women aren’t intoxicated.

it’s almost like the law expects people to get to know each other even a bit before they start shoving their dick in!

80-90 percent

Do you or anyone else have any evidence that Andrew was involved in trafficking?

As far as I can see the only two involved in trafficking were Jeffrey and Gullane.

Andrew and the rest took advantage of the girls, young women made available to them.
Did they know the girls were being controlled?
Or did they see them as willing escorts?

The age of consent in the UK is 16. Legally people can still get married in Scotland at 16, without parental permission.

Isn’t this a pointless question?

VG says she was trafficked for sex

VG is now dead

i am not the met police or the CPS.

and neither am I a court of law trying Andrew for trafficking. I don’t need evidence.

asking for evidence isn’t the flex people seem to think.

eta

“As far as I can see the only two involved in trafficking were Jeffrey and Gullane.”

having sex with a trafficked person is a crime

I agree with the 90% of any men regardless of wealth. Working class men raped an elderly woman who was clearly unconscious in France just a few years ago. The bar is in hell.

I've just read the Virginia G memoir extract in the Guardian. Truly harrowing read.
What happened was 100% awful but Andrew has the plausible deniability that she was 17 and there of own free will, so not illegal in the UK at the time. But he hasn't claimed that, he's still maintaining that he never even met her! Pack of lies, I don't believe the photograph of him and her has been faked. Shame on him and I hope the rest of his days are wretched.

If they believed she was genuinely willing I think most of them would, as high as 90%.

If they knew or believed she was trafficked I do think far fewer. Maybe half or slightly less.

Andrew was not accused of trafficking, but rape.

Having sex with a trafficked woman is 'de facto' rape as being trafficked means she can't consent.

I don't think anyone would buy an ignorance defence in this case.

Yes sorry I don’t think I was clear enough. Andrew had sex with a trafficked person. He doesn’t need to have actually brought her over himself

If they were absolutely they'd get away with it, 95% of them.

Its not that long ago that a British newspaper was publishing topless photos of 16yo girls.

I'd like to think its less than in the past, but the truth is many men see any girl or woman over the age of consent as "fair game".

No. Andrew has never been accused of trafficking. There is no suggestion he was involved in this. Allegedly he had sex with a woman who was trafficked. That is an entirely different thing.

Also you're stating that he has committed a crime. Not only have you got the crime wrong, but you've also got the fact that he committed a crime wrong. He has never been found guilty. There is no evidence that he has committed a crime. It is her word against his. We can no more say he didn't sleep with her than we can sat he did. It is in his interest to say he didn't. It is equally in her interest to say he did. We will never know.

The only fact is that a lot of money has been made by a lot of people. And now her brother is cashing in too.

95

At least 85%