Ghislaine Maxwell

[Vixen]

Indeed, not unlike battered women, or women who live in an abusive relationship - they have plenty of opportunity to leave while their husbands are at work, but don't, and when husband gets home they get more. In many cases, they do leave, only to later go back for more.

Ever wondered why any of that is? Well, read on and learn something.

There are eight key reasons why women who are being abused or victimised stay with their tormentor. Not all of them apply to all situations. I have highlighted the ones that, IMO, apply here...

1. Distorted thoughts 2. Damaged self worth 3. Fear and threats4. Wanting to be a saviour
5. Children
6. Family Expectations
7. Financial constraints 8. Isolation
1. Distorted Thoughts. Being controlled and hurt is traumatizing, and this leads to confusion, doubts, and even self-blame. In their own minds, they minimize and justify what is happening to them as a coping mechanism.

2. Damaged Self-Worth. Damage to the self that is the result of degrading treatment. Many women feel beaten down and of no value.

3. Fear and threats. The threat harm is powerful, and abusers use this to control and keep women trapped. Female victims are much more likely than male victims to be terrorized and traumatized. Attempting to leave an abuser is dangerous, Epstein and Maxwell were very powerful, with a long reach.

7. Financial Constraints.Not having enough confidence to leave because of the fear of having not financial stability

8. Isolation. A common tactic of abusive people. They isolate their victim from anyone who might be able to help. it is made it clear to them that they can't tell anyone else about their "work" or there will be consequences.

Some of these girls were so traumatised, isolated and ashamed of the situation they were in, and were so lacking in self-confidence, they were unable to tell anyone about it, not even their parents. They were also aware that there would be consequences if they did.

Now that Epstein is dead, and Maxwell has had her power removed, they feel able to come out and tell their stories - embarrassment and not wishing to relive the traumatic experiences are probably the only remaining constraints now.



Careful, your privilege and entitlement are showing again, and you are again minimizing the criminality of Maxwell, and this time, of Epstein as well: 'they were well paid, so where's the problem?'

PS: Is good to see that you studiously avoided addressing any of the other replies I made to your post, especially satisfying was seeing you avoid addressing those points I made about the conditions under which she is kept (which is, after all, what you claim to be all about in this thread). I wonder why that is? Maybe its because you've run out of excuses for Maxwell, or are unable to think of any new lies to make so that you can keep throwing BS at the wall in the hope that some of it might stick.

If a person is in a relationship and it turns abusive - there are often warning signs (like at work for example) - then you remove yourself from it. The women Epstein hired were not living with him, they had their own space and their own homes. The transaction was financial. A woman sharing a home with a partner or spouse invariably also shares children and finances. For many, finances can be tight, especially if the children are small and only one parent can work full-time. The house and bank account might be in both names. It can be difficult for a person to leave that situation easily, especially of you have to go through the family courts and arrange separation and divorce. Someone turning up at Epstein's mansion never needed to return the next day, yet many of these women did. In fact, they recruited their friends for extra money. They might have been too young and stupid to realise their folly but it still doesn't prove Epstein and Maxwell kept them against their will or enslaved them. Keep it in perspective, Maxwell recruited four or more who were under age and that is the extent of it. Epstein raped and assaulted some of them. If Maxwell also sexually assaulted them them this will all come out at trial. With several hundred women hired by Epstein I think it highly unlikely there was any emotional dependence or anything deeper than a cash transaction, not a relationship as between a couple. Giuffre stayed for five years, presumably because she was paid well and because of her dysfunctional background knew no better. However, she recruited hundreds of sex workers, too, so how is she different from Maxwell?

 

[smartcooky]

I just note that predators are skilled at identifying victims who are vulnerable and needly. Many of the Epstein/Maxwell victims had troubled family lives, little money and other issues that made them prey to someone who acted kind to them. Grooming is a real thing. Maxwell wasn't snatching girls from the halls of elite prep schools.

Indeed they are - this is a well-known and well-established fact, and is one of the reasons I just don't buy into Vixen's stance on this.

The idea that these girls were somehow willing participants in this scheme right from the get-go bears no relationship whatsoever to anything in actual reality.

 

[Vixen]

I just note that predators are skilled at identifying victims who are vulnerable and needly. Many of the Epstein/Maxwell victims had troubled family lives, little money and other issues that made them prey to someone who acted kind to them. Grooming is a real thing. Maxwell wasn't snatching girls from the halls of elite prep schools.

But she did, allegedly. A couple of the women came from wealthy backgrounds and were lured by Epstein and Maxwell (she now claims), who bought up one of the women's art work at an art gallery and offered to pay for a university course abroad. This woman did go to the police over Epstein's physical abuse but was fobbed off.

 

[xjx388]

I think the situation with Epstein/Maxwell is much more insidious than an abusive domestic situation.

Epstein and Maxwell were rich and powerful people. They had princes and presidents in their orbit. Now imagine you are a young girl (say 14 years old) from an abusive background and Ghislaine Maxwell, with all her attendant status and clout, singles you out as “special.” Promises you a career and money. As a young immature child, who has never had that kind of attention, that has to be intoxicating. It would be so easy for someone like Maxwell to groom a kid like that. So many emotional hooks to grab on to.

That’s the problem here. If these were adult women who chose to engage in sex work, that would be a different thing. But these were young girls who did not have stable home lives and Epstein/Maxwell exploited that vulnerability toward their own sexual fulfillment. It’s just disgusting.

 

[Belz...]

If a person is in a relationship and it turns abusive - there are often warning signs (like at work for example) - then you remove yourself from it. The women Epstein hired

Girls. Not women. Girls. That's the entire problem with your argument from day 1. But continue to minimise. Side with the molesters.

 

[smartcooky]

If a person is in a relationship and it turns abusive - there are often warning signs (like at work for example) - then you remove yourself from it.

Nice in theory. In reality, that rarely happens.

The women Epstein hired were not living with him, they had their own space and their own homes.

Irrelevant.

It does not mean he didn't rape them, it does not mean they weren't groomed by Maxwell, and it does not mean they didn't feel they were in a situation they could not get out of.

The transaction was financial.

Irrelevant.

Sex trafficking is a crime, regardless of whether or not the victims are paid.

A woman sharing a home with a partner or spouse invariably also shares children and finances. For many, finances can be tight, especially if the children are small and only one parent can work full-time. The house and bank account might be in both names. It can be difficult for a person to leave that situation easily, especially of you have to go through the family courts and arrange separation and divorce.

Irrelevant.

I deliberately left out children from the equation because it doesn't apply.

Pro Tip: Try actually reading posts instead of just skimming them and think you understand enough of what was said to that you can knee-jerk a reply!

Someone turning up at Epstein's mansion never needed to return the next day, yet many of these women did

Yes, because they were groomed and indoctrinated to do so, and were likely fearful of the consequences if they didn't. Having once been a victim of a partner who was a malignant narcissist, I can fully understand why they kept going back and didn't attempt to leave.

In fact, they recruited their friends for extra money. They might have been too young and stupid to realise their folly but it still doesn't prove Epstein and Maxwell kept them against their will or enslaved them.

Hindsight is always 20/20. You really have zero understanding of now any of this works in real life do you?

Sure, in your ideal "Wonderland", everyone would have the wherewithal to never fall into the traps laid by these two. Everyone would see Epstein and Maxwell for what they really were, and would immediately to do what you claim these girls could have done. But over here in "Realworld" where I live, it is nothing like your imaginary Wonderland. Your Wonderland does not exist.

Keep it in perspective, Maxwell recruited four or more who were under age and that is the extent of it.

One was enough to put her away for along time, and rightly so. Four shows a pattern of behaviour, that should put her away for much longer.

Epstein raped and assaulted some of them. If Maxwell also sexually assaulted them them this will all come out at trial.

I expect it will, but I don't expect it will change your stance one bit. You will just keep finding excuses for her, and if you can't find any, I expect you will just make some up.

With several hundred women hired by Epstein I think it highly unlikely there was any emotional dependence or anything deeper than a cash transaction, not a relationship as between a couple.

Irrelevant. Money paid to victims of sex-trafficking has no bearing on this case.

Giuffre stayed for five years, presumably because she was paid well

Irrelevant. Money paid to victims of sex-trafficking has no bearing on this case.

and because of her dysfunctional background knew no better.

...and she was targeted because of her dysfunctional background.... by Maxwell.

However, she recruited hundreds of sex workers, too, so how is she different from Maxwell?

Simple.

Giuffre was a victim, driven by fear of consequences.

Maxwell was sex-trafficker, an organizer, driven by greed, doing what she did for money, power and influence over the rich and famous.

NOTE: You are still studiously avoiding addressing any of the other replies I made to your earlier post about jail conditions. Wazzamatta Vixen, cat got your tongue?

 

[smartcooky]

I think the situation with Epstein/Maxwell is much more insidious than an abusive domestic situation.

Epstein and Maxwell were rich and powerful people. They had princes and presidents in their orbit. Now imagine you are a young girl (say 14 years old) from an abusive background and Ghislaine Maxwell, with all her attendant status and clout, singles you out as “special.” Promises you a career and money. As a young immature child, who has never had that kind of attention, that has to be intoxicating. It would be so easy for someone like Maxwell to groom a kid like that. So many emotional hooks to grab on to.

That’s the problem here. If these were adult women who chose to engage in sex work, that would be a different thing. But these were young girls who did not have stable home lives and Epstein/Maxwell exploited that vulnerability toward their own sexual fulfillment. It’s just disgusting.

If there was an award for hitting the nail on the head, I would nominate this post.

 

[Vixen]

Girls. Not women. Girls. That's the entire problem with your argument from day 1. But continue to minimise. Side with the molesters.

Oh please. There was a news headline the other day, 'Woman got child to rub his penis against her feet', yet when you open the article, it turns out the 'child' was actually a 16-year-old youth. This trend of calling young adults 'children' is pure manipulation to whip readers into a frenzy of outrage.

 

[Vixen]

I think the situation with Epstein/Maxwell is much more insidious than an abusive domestic situation.

Epstein and Maxwell were rich and powerful people. They had princes and presidents in their orbit. Now imagine you are a young girl (say 14 years old) from an abusive background and Ghislaine Maxwell, with all her attendant status and clout, singles you out as “special.” Promises you a career and money. As a young immature child, who has never had that kind of attention, that has to be intoxicating. It would be so easy for someone like Maxwell to groom a kid like that. So many emotional hooks to grab on to.

That’s the problem here. If these were adult women who chose to engage in sex work, that would be a different thing. But these were young girls who did not have stable home lives and Epstein/Maxwell exploited that vulnerability toward their own sexual fulfillment. It’s just disgusting.

A 14-year-old is not a 'young girl' . A 'young girl' would be about seven or eight. One of the accusers claims she was 14 at the time.

I get that people get groomed by being love bombed but where were the parents of these young adults?

I don't disagree that this behaviour is a problem. Virtually all the rock stars back in the day and even DJ's (John Peel bragged of bedding a 12-year-old) indulged in taking advantage of the young 'groupies'.

Fact remains, Many young adults are having an awful lot of sex as soon as they hit their teens.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh please. There was a news headline the other day, 'Woman got child to rub his penis against her feet', yet when you open the article, it turns out the 'child' was actually a 16-year-old youth. This trend of calling young adults 'children' is pure manipulation to whip readers into a frenzy of outrage.

16 years old is two years under age in that jurisdiction and is therefore a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!

What happens in other jurisdictions is totally irrelevant to this case. Both Epstein and Maxwell KNEW WHAT THE LAW WAS, but they did it anyway!

 

[Vixen]

Nice in theory. In reality, that rarely happens.



Irrelevant.

It does not mean he didn't rape them, it does not mean they weren't groomed by Maxwell, and it does not mean they didn't feel they were in a situation they could not get out of.



Irrelevant.

Sex trafficking is a crime, regardless of whether or not the victims are paid.



Irrelevant.

I deliberately left out children from the equation because it doesn't apply.

Pro Tip: Try actually reading posts instead of just skimming them and think you understand enough of what was said to that you can knee-jerk a reply!



Yes, because they were groomed and indoctrinated to do so, and were likely fearful of the consequences if they didn't. Having once been a victim of a partner who was a malignant narcissist, I can fully understand why they kept going back and didn't attempt to leave.



Hindsight is always 20/20. You really have zero understanding of now any of this works in real life do you?

Sure, in your ideal "Wonderland", everyone would have the wherewithal to never fall into the traps laid by these two. Everyone would see Epstein and Maxwell for what they really were, and would immediately to do what you claim these girls could have done. But over here in "Realworld" where I live, it is nothing like your imaginary Wonderland. Your Wonderland does not exist.



One was enough to put her away for along time, and rightly so. Four shows a pattern of behaviour, that should put her away for much longer.



I expect it will, but I don't expect it will change your stance one bit. You will just keep finding excuses for her, and if you can't find any, I expect you will just make some up.



Irrelevant. Money paid to victims of sex-trafficking has no bearing on this case.



Irrelevant. Money paid to victims of sex-trafficking has no bearing on this case.



...and she was targeted because of her dysfunctional background.... by Maxwell.



Simple.

Giuffre was a victim, driven by fear of consequences.

Maxwell was sex-trafficker, an organizer, driven by greed, doing what she did for money, power and influence over the rich and famous.

NOTE: You are still studiously avoiding addressing any of the other replies I made to your earlier post about jail conditions. Wazzamatta Vixen, cat got your tongue?

You can read about the jail conditions here, as particularised by her lawyers.

https://www.realghislaine.com/

Being a 'malignant narcissist' is not actually illegal, is it? However, I hope you managed to escape that relationship.

Maxwell had a healthy inheritance so was already rich without needing to turn to prostitution as a livelihood. Her motive would have been something else. She may have been a victim of Epstein, a very persuasive character who could also be menacing. Unfortunately, many women turn to prostitution out of greed. If they are earning $200 per diem for twenty minutes work, and then start secretly keeping polaroid pictures of a high-profile client by which to embarrass them later, then you tell me who is 'greedy'?

I am on Giuffre's side but there is always the possibility there is more to this than meets the eye. She first met Maxwell in March 2001 so was just five months short of her eighteenth birthday and had lived with an actual sex trafficker. (Not a 14-year-old.)

 

[smartcooky]

A 14-year-old is not a 'young girl' . A 'young girl' would be about seven or eight. One of the accusers claims she was 14 at the time.

Your definition is unique to you, and people like you, whose moral compass points in the direction of "its just fine for adults to have sex with under-aged teenagers".

I get that people get groomed by being love bombed but where were the parents of these young adults?

The parents did not groom them for sex with an adult, they will not be on trial for this. Maxwell did, and she will be!

I don't disagree that this behaviour is a problem. Virtually all the rock stars back in the day and even DJ's (John Peel bragged of bedding a 12-year-old) indulged in taking advantage of the young 'groupies'.

Irrelevant.

You really do have trouble identifying what is relevant and what is not. IMO, this is just another example of you throwing irrelevant BS at this and hoping it will stick.

Fact remains, Many young adults are having an awful lot of sex as soon as they hit their teens.

Fact remains, the vast majority of these young people have sex with their PEERS, with other kids their own age, and not with adults in their 40's and 50's, and for which they have been groomed by the adult's similarly aged partner!!
.
.
.

 

[smartcooky]

You can read about the jail conditions here, as particularised by her lawyers.

https://www.realghislaine.com/

Oh yeah, sure! A propaganda website devoted to fawning over her, put up by her devoted brother... like that is going to deal in truth and objectivity.

 

[Belz...]

Oh please. There was a news headline the other day, 'Woman got child to rub his penis against her feet', yet when you open the article, it turns out the 'child' was actually a 16-year-old youth. This trend of calling young adults 'children' is pure manipulation to whip readers into a frenzy of outrage.

The legal definition of "child" is "a minor" i.e. pre-adult.

Once again you are defeated by your poor command of the English language.

And once again you get distracted from the argument by focusing on the least important part of the post you quote. The point is that they ARE MINORS. It doesn't matter what other non-comparable example you can find. They CANNOT consent to sexual relations with adults.

 

[xjx388]

A 14-year-old is not a 'young girl' . A 'young girl' would be about seven or eight. One of the accusers claims she was 14 at the time.

Well, whether you consider them young or old, one thing for sure is that society and the law considers them not mature enough to enter into sexual relationships with much older men and women.

Also, totally missing the point.

I get that people get groomed by being love bombed but where were the parents of these young adults?

That these girls didn’t have good parents doesn’t mean that it was OK to take advantage of their situations.

I don't disagree that this behaviour is a problem. Virtually all the rock stars back in the day and even DJ's (John Peel bragged of bedding a 12-year-old) indulged in taking advantage of the young 'groupies'.

Those were abusive situations too. But whatever happened or didn’t happen back then has no bearing on what should happen in this case.

Fact remains, Many young adults are having an awful lot of sex as soon as they hit their teens.

Sure. But when we find out that they are being exploited by older people who prey on their vulnerability, that’s a problem we should nip right in the bud, no?

 

[jimbob]

If a person is in a relationship and it turns abusive - there are often warning signs (like at work for example) - then you remove yourself from it. The women Epstein hired were not living with him, they had their own space and their own homes. The transaction was financial. A woman sharing a home with a partner or spouse invariably also shares children and finances. For many, finances can be tight, especially if the children are small and only one parent can work full-time. The house and bank account might be in both names. It can be difficult for a person to leave that situation easily, especially of you have to go through the family courts and arrange separation and divorce. Someone turning up at Epstein's mansion never needed to return the next day, yet many of these women did. In fact, they recruited their friends for extra money. They might have been too young and stupid to realise their folly but it still doesn't prove Epstein and Maxwell kept them against their will or enslaved them. Keep it in perspective, Maxwell recruited four or more who were under age and that is the extent of it. Epstein raped and assaulted some of them. If Maxwell also sexually assaulted them them this will all come out at trial. With several hundred women hired by Epstein I think it highly unlikely there was any emotional dependence or anything deeper than a cash transaction, not a relationship as between a couple. Giuffre stayed for five years, presumably because she was paid well and because of her dysfunctional background knew no better. However, she recruited hundreds of sex workers, too, so how is she different from Maxwell?

My first thought was the punchline of the old joke, but it's appropriate

It's terrible, losing your reputation just because you **** ONE goat.

Secondly, you're saying that Maxwell "only" committed the crimes she's changed with, which is implausible and in the next sentence you are saying that she might indeed have sexually assaulted (actually raped) them, and this might come out in the trial. We know that there are credible accusations that she raped them, and we know that she was an accessory to rape and to child sex trafficking.

 

[Matthew Best]

But is she not fragrant?

 

[Vixen]

The legal definition of "child" is "a minor" i.e. pre-adult.

Once again you are defeated by your poor command of the English language.

And once again you get distracted from the argument by focusing on the least important part of the post you quote. The point is that they ARE MINORS. It doesn't matter what other non-comparable example you can find. They CANNOT consent to sexual relations with adults.

It used to be the case women were chattels of their husbands or if unmarried property of their father.

Yes, the law says a 17-year-old in most US states are technically chattels of their parents or guardians.

That is not the same as a 17-year-old voluntarily going to many parties time and again to have a good time and enjoy having sex with some guy or gal he or she met there. Yes, it is against the law but it is NOT the same as violent rape , being beaten up, abducted and forced into slavery, starved and kept in a room, forced to entertain up to fifty men a day. THAT is sex slavery.

 

[Darat]

It used to be the case women were chattels of their husbands or if unmarried property of their father.

Yes, the law says a 17-year-old in most US states are technically chattels of their parents or guardians.

...snip....

No it doesn't.

 

[Vixen]

Well, whether you consider them young or old, one thing for sure is that society and the law considers them not mature enough to enter into sexual relationships with much older men and women.

Also, totally missing the point.

That these girls didn’t have good parents doesn’t mean that it was OK to take advantage of their situations.

Those were abusive situations too. But whatever happened or didn’t happen back then has no bearing on what should happen in this case.

Sure. But when we find out that they are being exploited by older people who prey on their vulnerability, that’s a problem we should nip right in the bud, no?

How do you know the women didn't present themselves as 18 in order to get their hands on some lucrative cash in exchange for giving Epstein a massage? True, it appears Epstein 'liked them young', as Trump reportedly opined. However, Trump himself found Melania through his own 'model agency' and given how dumb she is I quite believe she was once an 'escort' girl.

We live in a culture where women especially are sexualised at an early age - model agencies, tv, music (cf, 'Young Girl' by Gary Puckett). That Giuffre and Maxwell lived in such a culture back in the mid-90's - to which her alleged offences relate - suggests it was voluntarily chosen. Technically its under age, like having an underage drink, but hey that 15-year-old who drank a half a shandy lived and is well. Fine the bartender whatever it is and let's not pretend it is a heinous crime.