Brilliant article on Epstein by Helen Rumbelow in the Times TW Distressing content

[Shockhorror22]

I studied the latest Epstein files. As a woman, this is what I felt

www.thetimes.com/article/3c43b881-0f36-43bf-a32b-66fcba2b44ac?shareToken=b062e64ca800a9fb4a31da2ea933ee14

It isn’t a possibility. It is certain. There are emails as clear as day. So much is clear, minors (babies!), rape, murder (whoops), etc. it’s disgusting the lengths of depravity they went to.

Yes but a lot of the names (not just victims) are still redacted so those people are protected.

Also the reaction seems slightly lopsided... When Mandleson was appointed ambassador I had a very long rant about how his character/clear admiration for a sex offender would come back and bite Starmer. And it did... But the media has been so fixated on Starmer it's diverting attention from the bigger problems- just for example Farage was in the Epstein files himself, and is just as in thrall to Trump (who absolute best case scenario has only raped adult women). So, people like Farage are showing the same character flaws that Mandleson was showing in 2024. But if those flaws made Mandleson unsuited to the position of ambassador (and Starmer in the wrong for not seeing it) the same flaws should make Farage unsuited as a politician/possible Prime Minister.

I don't want to make it just a political thing. Noam Chomsky was in the files FFS and the left has had some scandals in its time. Sex offenders exist across the political spectrum. It's that the media has a fascination for certain types of people. They loved Mandleson before he became Ambassador (he was always being interviewed) and the love having Farage on now.

I think the same qualities that make someone like Mandleson/Farage cosy up to the likes of Epstein and Trump - (idolising the rich and powerful for their wealth/power alone, constantly climbing the ladder, trying to be in the inner circle of everything, being quite exciting in an amoral way) also make them catnip for newspaper editors/TV execs etc. Mandleson was seen as a wise authority because of the relationships he cultivated. It was an asset not a liability. And that same mindset exists. Money/power or proximity to money/power = worth/intelligence. Which generates more wealth/power.

Plus,.of course, there is the possibility some of the redacted men are owners of newspapers or social media companies etc. It would explain some things.

Hijab westers also get harrassed. I know some people on here have concerns about the garment from a feminist perspective. But its also makes some men angry just because... The assumption that they should be having any opinion on what a woman they dont know is wearing in a public space is astounding. Let alone the anger. Women have the right not to show men their hair if they don't want to. So women have had their scarfs ripped of before.

Plus, there are loads of sexy nun costumes. Nuns are sexy because they dress chastely/aren't supposed to have sex. There is nothing women can wear do that can't be considered sexually titillating by men. We are such teases!

God what an utterly distressing, harrowing article.

It makes me so sad for the victims, and so fucking angry that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE FILTHY ANIMALS will get away with it. What the fuck can we do?

Women with Arabic features wearing hijabs is also a porn category 😥

Under dressed women are slags. Modestly dressed women are a challenge. And both therefore porn worthy.
There are apps to remove clothes from modestly dressed women (and children). And apps to add "modest/trad" clothing to more skimpily clothed women. FFS.

Does anyone know anything about Epstein upbringing and childhood? It would be very interesting to look at that and think about how he turned into a truly evil man with such misogynistic attitudes. We have heard a bit about GM but nothing at all about him.

Lots has been said of his childhood. Born and raised in Brooklyn. Relatively normal. In his 20s it is reported he showed an unhealthy attraction to young girls while a teacher (how he got his start in life with Bear Stearns).

He is a man who had an unhealthy attraction to young girls who got lucky in his employment, got involved in government (CIA) work in the ‘80s, then met Maxwell and the rest is the horrific files. All said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were abuses going back through to his 20s. He just became more brazen as he deemed himself untouchable up until the very end.

Amelia Gentleman on the subject:

Sex and snacks, but no seat at the table: the role of women in Epstein’s sordid men’s club www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/07/sex-and-snacks-but-no-seat-at-the-table-the-role-of-women-in-epsteins-sordid-mens-club?CMP=share_btn_url

Yes I read this. Good article but I’m bemused when the Guardian remembers what a woman is. It often seems to forget. I wish it could remain consistent when it comes to significant facts.

Because women can never talk about the way we get treated by men without a man popping up to talk over us and point out NAMALT. its patriarchal wackamole, there's always one.

Oh it's wrong to tar all men with the same brush. And you shouldn't always assume the worst. BUT if a 19 year old agrees to a "modelling contract"/acting audition that involves going to dinner with a man. Or agrees to be paid to be a pretty face on a yacht party then she definitely should have known what she was getting into. (Even if noone ever talks about this stuff, it's all euphemisms and she is from another country).** On the other a middle aged man jokingly emailing Epstein about his "harem" and pretty friends long after Epstein's first conviction was clearly sadly misled, can't have been expected to realise anything was amiss and shouldn't be tarred with guilt by association.

**Of course, anyone talking about the dangers beforehand would be scaremongering.

Excellent point. The double standards are astonishing.

https://19thnews.org/2026/02/epstein-files-academic-research-women-scientists/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the hatred and contempt Epstein had for intelligent women (well, all women). Bit depressing how many men of science went along with it. I would sort of hope that they were just toadying to get funding...but nope they probably do actually believe this. I knew that media, entertainment, politics, royalty was infested with this shit but I naively thought that men who were into scientific rigour, facts and whatnot might be different. Silly me. How bloody depressing.

Have you heard the conversation between Epstein and Ehud Barak where they both try to spell Palantir and fail? The man was, in many ways, a childish idiot (and a child rapists). It is indeed disappointing how many presumably intelligent men were in thrall to him while also back-patting each other on how they were smarter than women.

Hadley Freeman wrote a good one asking how supposedly clever men can be so stupid. She was asking the same questions I've been asking myself, about how gullible these men were. How were they so easily taken in by Epstein and why didn't they see the obvious, that he was a massive red flag? But they didn't see it and now there they are, in print and in pictures. Did they all honestly think what they were doing was okay and that they'd get away with it? Did none of them ever look at Epstein's smirk and have second thoughts about spending time with him?

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/clever-men-stupid-jeffrey-epstein-fw9f2vtrg

archive.ph/eXY7h

@MarjorieWestriding Thanks so much for sharing that. I love reading anything from Hadley 'Getting It Right Again' Freeman, as I like to call her, and that piece was no exception. I too am at the bewildered stage. I do think that part of the answer is that a lot of these men simply aren't as 'smart' as we think, and that that also depends on your definition of 'smart'. So, for example, Gates is clearly very intelligent in possibly the most traditional sense of the word but being academically able in specific areas (in his case presumably maths and science) isn't the same as being good at reading people, having good judgement, understanding or caring about morality, bothering to actually think about consequences and so on. Saying that, Mandelson absolutely was held up as someone who would excel in at least some of those areas (obviously not morality 😂) so you would expect him to at least understand he was putting himself in a compromising position but, with him, I'd think it's more that he didn't care, possibly because he overestimated his skills and assumed he could get himself out of anything, since that is a real strength he has. Coming back to Gates, perhaps he thought he had enough money to get out of anything so didn't need to worry. Ultimately, as Hadley says, it's quite incredible to see all these rich, powerful, successful men thoroughly trashing their own reputations and risking much worse for nothing that seems close to worth it to any normal person. I think they basically had too much time and money and not enough care for others and that is a terrible combination.

Another 'Churchill' piece by Hadley; you sit there, slowly nodding... 😀But I dunno if I agree about "rich, powerful, successful men thoroughly trashing their own reputations" , do Allen and Gates and Chomsky and the rest really give a damn what Joe and Josephine Public think?

I think you are overthinking it.

Powerful / rich men have always seen access to women as one of their rights. It's only in the last twenty years or so that society has recognised that older men having sex with teenage girls is abusive even if she believes it was her choice because of the power difference and likelihood of grooming. Most of Epstein's crowd grew up before then.

So it's not so much that they didn't think they'd get caught, as that they genuinely didn't think it was a big deal. In their heads they were James Bonds on their island surrounded by bits of pretty fluff. Hence Mandelson, a gay man, still enjoyed it because of what it represented - success and power.

They saw themselves as important and the girls as disposable beause that is how it has always been, and they assumed society would too.

And frankly, they were and are probably right. I'm sure even now, behind closed doors a lot of the (male) media and political establishment feel it's a storm in a teacup and resent being forced to do anything about it.

Depressingly I agree with flirt. They could live like Roman emperors because extreme wealth insulates you from the consequences. You see your peers all doing something so you do it too. This was exacerbated by drawing in royalty and senior politicians. Then you really are above the law because who is going to stop you?

It encapsulates the cliche that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They thought they had side stepped the rules laws and morals the rest of us have to live by. It was all quite intentional. They are not stupid. They are cruel bad men with all brakes taken off.

A small minority rejected his overtures like the ceo of Hermes. Also Tina Brown and Melanie French.

In the circles they moved in, at least among the people that mattered, everyone was doing it. It is normalised. Their moral compasses are completely skewed.

This is also why I don't like moral relativism "it was normal by the standards of the time so we can't criticise it". Always when you dive deeper it turns out "it" was considered acceptable by the rich and powerful and being criticised by others. By the same standard, raping and sex trafficking women and children is apparently considered acceptable/normal by many of our rich and powerful. Its still wrong.

Well precisely. But this again leaves me baffled about these guys. Because guess what, being involved in the trafficking and abuse of women and girls simply doesn't appeal to me. It's not the law or fear of judgement that stops me, it's that it's clearly wrong and also it repulses me. Wtf is wrong with this bunch of freaks that they don't feel that? Would most men be on board with this if they could? I get the whole 'power corrupts' but does it really turn you into a sex-obsessed deviant?

I wish we could see inside men's heads and work this out once and for all because I think about that too.
Unfortunately you would never get the funding for such a device as apparently a lot of Science is funded by paedophiles and deliberately excluded female scientists.

It turns you into someone who doesn't expect to hear the word No.