What do you think about Prince Andrew?

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

Sexual exploitation of women and girls used to be saucy (think Carry On movies, the Playboy Mansion or seaside postcards) and no-one wanted to think about the power imbalance apart from hairy feminists.

Now we know that Epstein was a sex trafficker, the media and the public think that every man who met him must have known about it and is therefore equally vile.

It's not as though misogyny has gone away though. Daily Mail articles about teen pregnancy for example attract highly rated comments about those slutty girls.

Why the discrepancy? Everyone seems to suffer the same kind of magical thinking - that every individual has perfect knowledge and perfect autonomy. The hard-of-thinking celebrity who gropes a pretty girl (or worse) and thinks its all good clean consensual fun? Definitely a p@#£do.The devious fourteen year-old, plotting her way to a cushy life on benefits? Definitely couldn't be a victim. Always think the worst of everyone.

Not sorry for Andrew, except insofar as he's a careless wielder of unconscious privilege who probably still doesn't get what he did wrong. But frustrated by the portrayal of misogyny as a parade of pantomime villains rather than the everyday menace that women all know about.

Yes, I'm just responding to the idea of them removing themselves from the line of succession, which is their bread and butter. Lose that connection, they'll lose their usp.

Aye lass.

Perhaps he can find his way there.

My thoughts exactly!
(Not the Hebrides, far too beautiful)

I think he's been caught out by a change in our culture. I think he was always a sleaze and suspect a lot of Royal men of being similar in attitude. They expect that despite not being the best looking and neither pleasant nor intelligent they will attract women, they believe themselves to be 'the catch' and the women lucky.

This, and not just Royals but many, many, many men of any kind of decent wealth/high status job. I still remember this dating programme for rich men, and how they would describe to the planner what they were looking for and she would go scouting. One wealthy guy was like "I want a tiny little spinner", and when the dating host look confused, he replied, "You know, a spinner - she's so small and light I can just sit her on my dick and spin her around to whatever position I want".

Jesus fucking Christ, the men were vile.

I was thinking something along the lines of Rockall, which that man had to be winched off last year. Not a picturesque croft.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48582267

A little spinner?

Not half as spinny as my eyes reading that.

A bastard disgrace.

Another one for Rockall, I think.

@Brefugee “He's a spoiled arrogant snob. Liz's favourite but now she's no longer protecting him, Charles should take a leaf out of the Queen of Denmark's book and chop off every branch of the family from being HRH who don't belong to the direct line.”

💯 agree……. chop chop chop

The cultural change is a good point. When I was 18 I worked as a cocktail waitress in a so-called ‘high roller’ room at a casino. The men were very wealthy, some very famous, the drinks we served were all free and the tips were huge. Many of the girls I worked with were all over those men - sometimes they’d meet them after work, they’d be flown off to Paris or the Bahamas for a few days, given some jewellery or whatever & we’d hear all about it afterwards. Some of the girls drifted into prostitution. At the time I never had the sense that they were trafficked, or even victims- if anything I always felt like the men were the pathetic, easy to manipulate ones. I suppose it seemed transactional, and of course the same thing is happening now with the sugar daddy trend.

It confuses me, to be honest. Sometimes the lines are so blurred.

@theilltemperedclavecinist I don’t really get your point fully- are you saying it was so ubiquitous that people shouldn’t retrospectively call it out now because we should judge them more by the standards of the time? Or are you saying that just because someone is friends with a p**do pimp like Epstein doesn’t mean they knew what they were up to? Or is it something else?
for the record I think the unsealed documents had women alleging that they were told to have orgies with Prince Andrew when they were teenagers, and more than one saying he groped them without consent. He also paid 12 million to an accuser without a gagging order so he has been acting guilty as hell.
My guess is the reason Charles won’t cut him off is because he has dirt on him. Charles was friends with Savile and Peter Ball- he defended the latter post accusations. Given that there is probably significant levels of vetting for people who get near the royals people probably expect more from them. Clinton seems very guilty too because he’s been accused of sexual misconduct several times before and was good friends with the likes of Kevin Spacey as well.
i think your general point about assuming the worst of people can get a bit extreme but in Andrew’s case I think the opposite might be true. Ditto Clinton, same with Trump.

Nonce.

Quite

I disagree with you all. I think he is a medical marvel! he should be closely studied in a lab to find out what exact disease he has where he stopped sweating for only a period of time that was convenient to him.

Location of Epstein Island…

I feel there’s too much excusing men like Prince Andrew, as if his position makes him immune to growing a moral compass like mere mortals, and that doesn’t sit well with me.

A great many people know what’s going on and have kept quiet about it, as happened with Savile, and as is happening with other celebrities. I don’t suppose anyone can be certain of the reasons why this information is managing to be kept so secret, but I strongly suspect it’s because this is so widespread and commonplace amongst the so-called elite who then protect themselves.

You cannot persuade me that JS rose the ranks, befriended politicians, royal family and celebrities, because of his winning personality! Everyone knew what he was doing.

All took advantage of the relatively low standing of women to take complete advantage, Andrew deserves no excuses. None of them do.

In the appalling event that William and family got wiped out, if Prince Harry decided to stay in America there is nothing the RF or any act of the British parliament could do to make him return. If he decides they are irrelevant to his future and applies for American citizenship his freedom is assured. H&M's relationship with the RF will keep them 'interesting' for the rest of their lives, and not being embedded in the system and under the control of the roadies gives them much more scope for monetising that.

Whereas Prince Andrew, staying in England, could not be prevented from taking his place in the succession, whether the ordinary people dislike him or not. After the King and Prince William, Andrew is the senior adult RF member in the lives of the three Wales children. His standing is assured.

Prince Andrew can be prevented from taking the throne. Parliament are sovereign and would act in the interest of the nation.
Plus. Never in a million years would Harry and Meghan want to step out of the line of succession.

@Bigtimebill my main point is that women always get more of the blame than men, and if a man does get well and truly caught out, he gets the NAMALT treatment, instead of it being seen as part of a pattern of oppression.

@theilltemperedclavecinist oh sorry I thought you were getting at something different. I think you are right on the broad point but I’m wondering what you would think the ideal or correct response might look like in the case of Andrew? I’ve seen a lot of downplaying of his conduct. Many wanting him to go away but not sent to prison as he is probably deserving of, in my opinion.

I love a court case, and don't see why he should be exempt. He might turn out to be 'not guilty but sleazy' though - and then you get the backlash from the men's rights nitwits.

Remember the poor girl who didn't know a footballer had had sex with her until he circulated the phone footage? She had to go into hiding.

I am a bit puzzled as to why the same idiots aren't supporting PA, but then we did have someone upthread who called Guiffre a call girl, so.....

I love a court case, and don't see why he should be exempt.

No one in their right mind would volunteer to go to American to stand trial as the accused.

@donquixotedelamancha I would not refer to children who were trafficked, sexually abused and raped as "minor prostitutes".

@SaffronSpice Maybe, 12 million of of the family money, with no gagging order attached, is a fair chunk to pay to try make it go away, I don’t think everyone who settles a court case is automatically guilty but this particular case stinks. I think a lot of people would take the opportunity to clear their names in a civil suit. I doubt he would have had to appear in court personally so could have been a win win. If he was innocent. He doesn’t seem innocent at all. He’s terrible at defending himself too.

@theilltemperedclavecinist if the women were minors, sounds like they were at the time, he is guilty of statutory r*pe. Paying for sex with teenagers when you are a grown man is disgusting and not just sleazy, sleazy in my mind is a man making comments about the body or appearance of a woman, typically a young woman, and maybe holding too long on a hug. I think groping isn’t just sleazy, it’s been sexual assault for a long time now.
Victim blaming and a a dislike of p**dos aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I get where you are coming from, but I’ve noticed on this forum and IRL people who aren’t actively anti-monarchy seem to err on the side of downplaying the crimes and misconduct of the royals. I find it odd, they have all the hallmarks of a deeply corrupt institution that behaves like it’s above the law. People don’t seem to quite believe it, not really, or if they believe it, they say people are making too big or deal or there are worse things. yes there’s always something worse, but minimising what Andrew done is no big deal because lots of men do it- is wrong and ultimately destructive. Not least because him and his family have been blatantly evasive and uncooperative in this investigation. Charles has questions to answer about his friendships too, they are all publicly funded and they represent the UK so it really does matter how they behave

Yes, it does put me in mind of the black joke “what’s the main cause of paedophilia? Sexy toddlers”.

Calling a trafficked teenage victim of CSE “a call girl”, as if she chose to be trafficked, is despicable honestly. Do these posters think Gary Glitter was simply led astray by seductive children as well?

I would love him to go to prison, but there is clearly no way the Royal Family will allow that to happen (and yes I do think they are an entirely corrupt institution), so Rockall is the next best option in my book.

Somewhere out of the public eye, in clear disgrace, with no option of coming slithering back when he thinks the fuss has died down.