• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ghislaine Maxwell

LondonJohn said:
He wasn't convicted of murder though.

The words "Ex-boyfriend escaped murder" in the title ought perhaps to have served as a clue....


(Anyhow, this is all now getting pretty off-piste as regards the actual topic of this thread)
Click to expand...

Soz, poor google translation, it actually read Milla's murder: boyfriend escapes the murder sentence.

He was charged with murder and he got away with a lesser charge as two-thirds of them do (65 homicides 2019 only 20 murder convictions). And in any case, had he got 'life' he would have been legally entitled to apply for parole well before the maximum of fifteen years.

Compare and contrast 35 years for being a Madam (if your name is Maxwell, that is).

Compare and contrast to Heidi Fleiss, a self-professed prostitute who ran a prostitution ring:

Superior Court Judge Judith Champagne seemed almost apologetic Wednesday as she sentenced Heidi Fleiss to 3 years in prison for running a ritzy call-girl ring that catered to rich and powerful men.

Fleiss, known as the Hollywood Madam, received the mandatory 3-year minimum sentence required under California law.
Click to expand...
Chicago Tribune

This was overturned on appeal.
 
smartcooky said:
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Where would you draw it? 16? 14? 13? 12? 10 perhaps?
Click to expand...

I understand that point. However, we were discussing psychological and physical harm. I was interested in understanding why it would be more harmful for a 'call girl' to be seventeen than eighteen in the USA, yet in the UK a seventeen year old is a consenting adult?
 
theprestige said:
Doesn't matter exactly where we draw the line. The specific age of consent is a red herring. Vixen is minimizing the risk of harm in principle. Wherever you draw the line, she's still going to insist that what Maxwell is accused of probably isn't really so bad.

The fact that some countries put the age of consent lower than the ages of some of Maxwell's victims isn't supporting an argument that the age of consent should be lower. Vixen isn't arguing that. It's supporting her argument that the risk of harm isn't as great as we make it out to be, and maybe Maxwell doesn't deserve such a harsh sentence.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to underplay the harm, I am trying to get to the objective facts. ISTM that there are those who can be happily married at fourteen or more frequently, sixteen, and others whose development into maturity extends as late as into the twenties. The type of women Epstein attracted appeared to be those who mostly didn't seem to mind being sexually active, or already had been, except now they were being paid.

I completely agree young people need to be protected from sexual predators but is it an absolute truth that someone aged seventeen in the USA is harmed by sexual relationships, whereas as one in the UK is not? Do American women take longer to develop or is it a case the USA is more protective. I think it is great that young adults in the USA are barred from drinking alcohol, given the unedifying spectacle of UK teenagers falling over drunk in the streets on Saturday night after legally consuming huge quantities of the stuff.
 
smartcooky said:
A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Where would you draw it? 16? 14? 13? 12? 10 perhaps?
Click to expand...

Exactly. People use that argument like a drunk uses a taxi. It gets them to where they want to go, but they show no interest in where it came from or where it goes afterwards.

"it's ridiculous that a 16-year-old can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 364 days is too young."

Maybe it is. But if you accept that argument, it then becomes just as ridiculous that someone who's 15 years, 364 days can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 363 days is too young.

Then it's just as ridiculous that someone who's 15 years, 363 days can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 362 days is too young...

Fast forward an hour or two...

It's ridiculous that an eight-year-old can have sex, but someone who's seven years, 364 days is too young. Etc.

I'm sure none of us are arguing for eight-year-olds having sex, but if you keep chipping away at the age of consent in increments so small they make no apparent difference in the maturity of the individual, when do you stop chipping? If you argue that it's ridiculous that you can have sex on your 16th birthday but not the day before, but wouldn't dream of making this case for your eighth birthday, where did you stop and why? That date will also be vulnerable to the one-day-before rule.

As you rightly say, you have to draw the line somewhere. You could argue it's in the wrong place of course, and make a case for an earlier or a later one, but pointing out someone's no more mature a day earlier is an argument that takes the arguer into places they really didn't want to go.

I used the UK age of consent here, but you can substitute your local one if you wish.
 
Ian Osborne said:
Exactly. People use that argument like a drunk uses a taxi. It gets them to where they want to go, but they show no interest in where it came from or where it goes afterwards.

"it's ridiculous that a 16-year-old can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 364 days is too young."

Maybe it is. But if you accept that argument, it then becomes just as ridiculous that someone who's 15 years, 364 days can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 363 days is too young.

Then it's just as ridiculous that someone who's 15 years, 363 days can have sex, but someone who's 15 years, 362 days is too young...

Fast forward an hour or two...

It's ridiculous that an eight-year-old can have sex, but someone who's seven years, 364 days is too young. Etc.

I'm sure none of us are arguing for eight-year-olds having sex, but if you keep chipping away at the age of consent in increments so small they make no apparent difference in the maturity of the individual, when do you stop chipping? If you argue that it's ridiculous that you can have sex on your 16th birthday but not the day before, but wouldn't dream of making this case for your eighth birthday, where did you stop and why? That date will also be vulnerable to the one-day-before rule.

As you rightly say, you have to draw the line somewhere. You could argue it's in the wrong place of course, and make a case for an earlier or a later one, but pointing out someone's no more mature a day earlier is an argument that takes the arguer into places they really didn't want to go.

I used the UK age of consent here, but you can substitute your local one if you wish.
Click to expand...



Do people seriously believe that a seventeen-year-old is in the same arbitrary category as an eight-year-old? Is it really correct to call someone attracted to a seventeen-year-old a 'paedophile' and should be subjected to the same penal code as someone who really is attracted to children and acts on it?
 
Vixen said:
Do people seriously believe that a seventeen-year-old is in the same arbitrary category as an eight-year-old? Is it really correct to call someone attracted to a seventeen-year-old a 'paedophile' and should be subjected to the same penal code as someone who really is attracted to children and acts on it?
Click to expand...

You'll be happy to know that within the US, laws penalizing sex acts involving a minor mostly have bracketed definitions and penalties, so indeed someone who statutorily rapes a 17 year old is not subject to the same code and penalty as if their victim had been 8.

Federal law has different sentencing guidelines for trafficking victims between 14-17 and victims und 14.

NY law on statutory rape brackets under 11, under 15 and under 18 as separate codes.

I suppose if you might have looked that up if you were interested.
 
But over and above sentencing specifics, stop equivocating between legal wrongs and moral wrongs.

Things will be legal in one jurisdiction and illegal in another, duh. You can say the same about speed limits, drug use or the allowable size of basement egress windows. Yet people seem to save this whole weird conflation of drawing a legal line with an objective moral line for a few pet issues including age of consent.

Laws aren't moral truths, they're attempts at practical tools for human welfare, arrived at in a messy way, crafted by politicians who disagree madly and hate each other.

Many things are morally reprehensible without being illegal. Some things are illegal and ultimately harmless.

If this is a surprise to you or feels like a great injustice and you're over the age of consent in your country, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Cavemonster said:
If this is a surprise to you or feels like a great injustice and you're over the age of consent in your country, then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

And the age of consent is irrelevant when the girl said "no".
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Are you referring to a specific girl that said no in this case?
Just catching up.
Click to expand...

This for starters


smartcooky said:
Right. You don't understand what the idiom, "on paper" actually means.

"On paper" means in theory but not in reality. By using it the way you did, you inferred Maxwell didn't really do anything wrong.




So, you think rape victims are motivated to come forward by money

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ghislaine-maxwell-rape-testify-evil-epstein

"A woman who claims Ghislaine Maxwell raped her dozens of times – beginning when she was just 14 years old – says she is willing to take the stand and testify against Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-girlfriend. In an exclusive interview with Fox News, Jane Doe, who wishes to protect her identity, said Maxwell sexually abused her beginning in 1991 in Florida. She said the abuse continued until she was 16.

Maxwell was arrested Thursday on federal charges for facilitating and participating in sexual abuse acts with minors,

“She did rape me. I would say it’s more than 20 or 30 times,” she said. “She is just as evil as Jeffrey Epstein … She is a rapist.”

Jane Doe claims years of sexual abuse came to an end only after she became pregnant with Jeffrey Epstein’s baby. At age 16, she had an abortion.​

A virgin and a child at the time, Doe explained, Maxwell would use toys and penetrate her with her fingers.

“When this started, she told me that Epstein was getting upset because I kept bleeding, and that she was helping so that it wouldn’t hurt so much because it should be satisfying.”​

And you think these girls just made up stories for money :rolleyes:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-araoz-ghislaine-maxwell-arreset

The attorney for Jeffrey Epstein accuser Jennifer Araoz told "The Story" Thursday that his client is relieved at the arrest of former Epstein girlfriend and longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who the attorney described as the "ringmaster" of Epstein's child sex ring.

"Ghislane Maxwell is a monster and she's now in custody. And that's a very good thing," Daniel Kaiser told host Martha MacCallum." "My client, Jennifer, is relieved -- as [are], I'm sure, all the victims of of Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.

"Ms. Maxwell was the ringmaster, she was the architect of Jeffrey Epstein's sex ring," Kaiser went on. "She hid it. She maintained it. If not for her, the ring wouldn't have persisted for as long as it did and it would not have victimized as many people as it did, as many young girls, including my client."​
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
I understand that point. However, we were discussing psychological and physical harm. I was interested in understanding why it would be more harmful for a 'call girl' to be seventeen than eighteen in the USA, yet in the UK a seventeen year old is a consenting adult?
Click to expand...

You keep on saying this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom
it is illegal to buy sex from a person under 18 where the perpetrator does not reasonably believe they are 18 or over. [5]
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Playing devil's advocate, that qualifying clause, would be Prince Andrew's defence in court, were he to ever be charged. Bear in mind, he could also claim he didn't know Giuffre was a sex worker, given all of his life he has had women throwing themselves at him for free.
Click to expand...

Yes and once again it seems the thread is populated by moral high grounders rather than a scruffy Dickensian parade. Maybe it really is so. We are all an ethical cut above.
I know I am.
 
Vixen said:
If you look at the statistics, in 2018 only eleven people got 'life' and in 2019, this figure was 20. As there were apx. 65 homicides in 2019, this tells you they did not all get 'life' but a fixed term sentence, in accordance with what I stated earlier.
Click to expand...

That means that only eleven people were convicted of murder. Murder is not the only kind of homicide. If you want to include manslaughter convictions, then don't talk about just murder.
 
carlitos said:
Frustrated pulp-fiction writer-cum-researcher in a scratchy fair isle sweater uses knowledge from their Accounting 102 class to take down a Sex Ponzi scheme. Definitely needs more murder, but it's a start.
Click to expand...
If you're going for streaming media you'll need plenty of scenery porn, actual porn, a lead who can brood on screen and bizarre and gory murders. Perhaps sex-toy themed? Dehydrated with Hitachi, choked with a dildo, castrated by a cock cage, strangled with a single-tail......
 
carlitos said:
Whooosh.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Do people seriously believe that a seventeen-year-old is in the same arbitrary category as an eight-year-old? Is it really correct to call someone attracted to a seventeen-year-old a 'paedophile' and should be subjected to the same penal code as someone who really is attracted to children and acts on it?
Click to expand...

I'm convinced, carlitos is a time lord.
 
catsmate said:
If you're going for streaming media you'll need plenty of scenery porn, actual porn, a lead who can brood on screen and bizarre and gory murders. Perhaps sex-toy themed? Dehydrated with Hitachi, choked with a dildo, castrated by a cock cage, strangled with a single-tail......
Click to expand...
I saw the Dehydrated with Hitachi tour when it went through Decatur, IL. Shonen Knife was the opening act.


Dr. Keith said:
I'm convinced, carlitos is a time lord.
Click to expand...

Speaking of time, I think it's been about a year since none of us bet on Ghislane Maxwell never appearing in public.

ETA - Link
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom