Prince Andrew Thread 4

[Roussette]

I'm starting a new one as events seem to be moving again. Sorry I can't do a link to no. 3

However, there are still many people who consider anal sex to be wrong. The fact that it was still a criminal offence within living memory may be a factor.

If you pull the thread backwards, it's because anal sex allowed the (relative) possibility of consequence free sex for men and women. And part of the perpetuation of the patriarchy is dependent on controlling womens reproductive rights.

There is a photo of the cheque paid to the masseuse from Buck Palace, you know, doesn't everyone keep a 22 year old cheque just in case.

If it's from the palace, I would assume they would, for a souvenir

It is a little odd. The letter of 1st February clearly states that the motion contains things that are not in the version released. However, I can't find the full text of the judge's ruling at the moment, but reports say she said, "The Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant’s concern that media interest in the motion warrants temporary sealing of the documents in their entirety." I wonder if the words "in their entirety" are significant and she has only unsealed the motion not relating to juror 50. It may be, for example, that what we are seeing is an alternative motion they have submitted to be considered should the motion for a mistrial due to juror 50 fail.

For clarity, I was responding to the message from @notanotheroneagain re the unsealing of Maxwell's motion for a retrial.

@SerendipityJane

However, there are still many people who consider anal sex to be wrong. The fact that it was still a criminal offence within living memory may be a factor.

If you pull the thread backwards, it's because anal sex allowed the (relative) possibility of consequence free sex for men and women. And part of the perpetuation of the patriarchy is dependent on controlling womens reproductive rights.

I have to disagree. Sodomy laws have almost exclusively been used to target homosexual couples - not just in the UK but generally around the world. In the UK, it was made a capital offence in 1533 as part of Henry VIII's attack on the monasteries, so clearly targeting homosexuality. That is also how it was prosecuted in practise until the law was changed. Male on male anal sex, even if consensual and in private, could get you convicted. Male on female anal sex was highly unlikely to result in anyone being arrested, let alone convicted, provided it was consensual and in private.

Well, I remembered 1967 but I didn't know the 1994 info, prh47, so thank you for that. I was definitely awake in 1994, but obviously not taking notice.

Didn't the term sodomy encompass bestiality, oral and everything else that wasn't simply lying back and thinking of England?

It is natural to keep a memento like that, though if it happened it's surprising she didn't sell the story to the red tops for some quick cash sooner. Perhaps the fact that Andrew doesn't have Palace lawyers with him anymore emboldened her.

I have to disagree. Sodomy laws have almost exclusively been used to target homosexual couples

I disagree back.

It's precisely because such relationships cannot produce children and are therefore outwith the control of the patriarchy they have been deemed to be illegal.

As long as you can peddle the idea that sex is exclusively for procreation, you can control the 50% of the population that have to do the work around it.

The moment you enter a world where there's possibility of pregnancy free sex then you lose your grip on women.

I refer you to the Catholic Church (who pretty much wrote the book on how to be a patriarchy) and their prohibition on contraception. Which comes from exactly the same place.

Not sure I would keep a momento from someone who totally creeped me out but then I wouldnt have continued working with him either

As long as you can peddle the idea that sex is exclusively for procreation, you can control the 50% of the population that have to do the work around it.

So in order to control women we introduce laws that target homosexual men? We don't outlaw lesbianism? We don't bother prosecuting women who partake in anal sex? So all of these attacks on gay men are actually attacking women?

I don't doubt that historically women have been oppressed, but roping in laws targeting homosexual men and saying they are really about oppressing women seems a little extreme to me.

I don't doubt that historically women have been oppressed, but roping in laws targeting homosexual men and saying they are really about oppressing women seems a little extreme to me.

You see my view of "history" is that it goes back for fucking ever. Controversial I know. But then so is the idea that "history started 100 years ago". Or maybe 150. And that anything that happened before "doesn't matter coz it was so long ago"*.

If we want to delve down rabbit holes, an ignorance of history tends to be correlated with all sorts of unpleasant behaviours. Or so I would assert.

• • a real life quote ** - and another

I agree that history goes back forever. But, however far back we go, laws about (and societal attitudes on) anal sex have been predominantly about gay men. However, we are a long way down a rabbit hole and well off the subject of this thread so I suggest we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I just find it hard to believe that B and E appear so relatively "normal" despite having A and S as parents. They dont seem to have screwed them up at all!

@TheBestofTimesTheWorstofTimes

I just find it hard to believe that B and E appear so relatively "normal" despite having A and S as parents. They dont seem to have screwed them up at all!

Yes, I don’t get it. They did go to boarding school though.

They took Beatrice out of one school because they were not happy with it and she was unhappy (dyslexia), and put her in one nearer to them where she thrived.

The Yorks have been good parents by all accounts, despite being divorced. This horrible business must be awful for the two princesses, I do hope it is resolved before too long.

I read today that Eugenie is visiting Harry & co in the States, they went to a rugby match together. It's good that the close bond between the cousins has not been broken by Harry moving away, they spent so much time together as kids.

Harry looks like he’s had his hair highlighted in the pics . I wonder if Eugenie is staying with him?

They will have been brought up mainly by nannies.

Lots of people employ nannies, it doesn't mean they do not engage with their children.

I did not say that. But it may be why they have appeared to turn out okay if the bulk of the parenting has been done by nannies.

@Monopolyiscrap

I did not say that. But it may be why they have appeared to turn out okay if the bulk of the parenting has been done by nannies.

Why the face? Some children are largely brought up by nannies. I have known nannies whose children in their care spent an hour a day with the children.
The children loved their parents and the parents loved the children.
But nearly all day-to-day parenting was done by paid staff.

Sorry children spent an hour a day with the parents.

Apparently VG has lost the original photo of her with PA… in daily fail. PA will have a field day with that, if she really can’t find it