Org Mobile Site
Thread: Duchy of York and Virginity
So is there anything definite to talk about or are we still at the he-said-she-said blind speculation/royal bashing stage?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
The points that Rory highlights are the sad and unavoidable absurdities of promiscuity - the only true solution is to return to our traditional Judeo-Christian morals.
Only if our judeo-christian morals get a much needed update from the 1800-1950's iteration. Islam is not the only religion that has to evolve or die in the 21st century.The points that Rory highlights are the sad and unavoidable absurdities of promiscuity - the only true solution is to return to our traditional Judeo-Christian morals.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
So is there anything definite to talk about or are we still at the [...] royal bashing stage?
That stage is plenty good enough for me. So is there anything definite to talk about or are we still at the [...] royal bashing stage?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I understand your point. It boils down to "if you have any doubt, refuse." Means you have to say "no" because you are unsure, or if you think they have a reasonable chance to be too "potted" to make a clear decision.
That's ethics, not law. You are supposed to refrain if the other person is not capable of participating in the tango/no tango decision equitably.
When can one ever be 100% sure? I can not tell the difference between someone who is 15 and even 18 with 100% accuracy (not relevant to me as due to me age 25 would be the absolute floor) and if you're 18 that is important. Since the answer to the question "how old are you?" is not enough this approach is going to be flawed.I understand your point. It boils down to "if you have any doubt, refuse." Means you have to say "no" because you are unsure, or if you think they have a reasonable chance to be too "potted" to make a clear decision.
That's ethics, not law. You are supposed to refrain if the other person is not capable of participating in the tango/no tango decision equitably.
It was not just ethics, it was also law - participating is one facet with the other ones being the ability of the other party to cry "rape" and you can say no it wasn't... and that's about it.
Given the risk can be a 14 year prison sentence along with all the fun that involves, even a very low risk is one people would like to mitigate.
To prevent teenage pregnancies contraception can be given out to very young teenagers. This pragmatic approach has proven to be much better than a "morally this shouldn't be required". I would like something equally pragmatic in these cases - personally I'd like clubs when they say 18+ to have the legal blowback if under 18s are in there - then they'd properly check IDs rather than letting in any female who is half dressed.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
If there's enough evidence to indict him, Prince Andrew should have his day in court, too.
That's something that should go without saying, but some are against the very idea. Any takers here?
yeah, I dont't think there is anything worth talking about here. A sex scandal sure, but that's for magazines for people who like sex-scandals. I don't see what is wrong with what happened. If it is against the law the judge should decide, but I can't get worked up over this. That changes if she was forced to do it though, but I really doubt she was. Even then, could he have known.If there's enough evidence to indict him, Prince Andrew should have his day in court, too.
That's something that should go without saying, but some are against the very idea. Any takers here?
For someone who isn't following the affair:
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
For someone who isn't following the affair:
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
BothFor someone who isn't following the affair:
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
She was both under the age of consent and she is claiming she was exploited.
Luckily for the sleazy prince however there is little chance of him facing charges - it is a case of He says She says with the only evidence being they were both at the same place at the same time - with no evidence of hanky panky
Its a shame really as Andrew is a blight on our country and its about time his antics came with more than a slap on the wrist...
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
For someone who isn't following the affair:
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
These girls stand in line to be a luxory escort-girl, easy to find ones that are much more atractive, so I really doubt the sex-slave part, if you take a walk in the red-light districts of Amsterdam you will see girls that could as well be supermodels. I really really doubt she was there against her will.For someone who isn't following the affair:
Is this about the letter of the law on age of sexual emancipation, or is the woman in question claiming in particular that she was exploited as a trafficked sex-worker?
If it's the latter, then I'm afraid the age-discussion is a red herring.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
These girls stand in line to be a luxory escort-girl, easy to find ones that are much more atractive, so I really doubt the sex-slave part, if you take a walk in the red-light districts of Amsterdam you will see girls that could as well be supermodels. I really really doubt she was there against her will.
By law, she was. Her age rendered her, legally, incapable of making such a decision or entering a contract for such a relationship.These girls stand in line to be a luxory escort-girl, easy to find ones that are much more atractive, so I really doubt the sex-slave part, if you take a walk in the red-light districts of Amsterdam you will see girls that could as well be supermodels. I really really doubt she was there against her will.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
When can one ever be 100% sure? I can not tell the difference between someone who is 15 and even 18 with 100% accuracy (not relevant to me as due to me age 25 would be the absolute floor) and if you're 18 that is important. Since the answer to the question "how old are you?" is not enough this approach is going to be flawed.
It was not just ethics, it was also law - participating is one facet with the other ones being the ability of the other party to cry "rape" and you can say no it wasn't... and that's about it.
Given the risk can be a 14 year prison sentence along with all the fun that involves, even a very low risk is one people would like to mitigate.
To prevent teenage pregnancies contraception can be given out to very young teenagers. This pragmatic approach has proven to be much better than a "morally this shouldn't be required". I would like something equally pragmatic in these cases - personally I'd like clubs when they say 18+ to have the legal blowback if under 18s are in there - then they'd properly check IDs rather than letting in any female who is half dressed.
I emphasized ethics in the sense that -- regardless of legal quibblings as to age of consent and majority -- a grown man (particularly someone of position and pelf who is eminently suit-worthy) should have the moral fiber and common sense to say NO to anyone who may not be of an appropriate age. It isn't as though some clearly mid-20s 'bed-buddy' would have been unavailable. Moreover, if the person involved appears to be 25 or so to visual inspection -- though such things can be faked -- no reasonable jury would convict/vote for the plaintiff.When can one ever be 100% sure? I can not tell the difference between someone who is 15 and even 18 with 100% accuracy (not relevant to me as due to me age 25 would be the absolute floor) and if you're 18 that is important. Since the answer to the question "how old are you?" is not enough this approach is going to be flawed.
It was not just ethics, it was also law - participating is one facet with the other ones being the ability of the other party to cry "rape" and you can say no it wasn't... and that's about it.
Given the risk can be a 14 year prison sentence along with all the fun that involves, even a very low risk is one people would like to mitigate.
To prevent teenage pregnancies contraception can be given out to very young teenagers. This pragmatic approach has proven to be much better than a "morally this shouldn't be required". I would like something equally pragmatic in these cases - personally I'd like clubs when they say 18+ to have the legal blowback if under 18s are in there - then they'd properly check IDs rather than letting in any female who is half dressed.
Taking into consideration that the chances prince andrew will ever be tried under any court of law beside a british one is nil: I find I do not care about the local age of consent laws.
All we can do on this thread is morally judge; that he did it in a nation is clinging to an outdated age of consent is frankly irrelevant to said judgment. Unless it's proven andrew was aware that the girl was being paid/forced to sleep with him I dont care.
As for skeeviness: Hugh Hefner has been doing worse for 40 years and none of you started a thread over it.
All we can do on this thread is morally judge; that he did it in a nation is clinging to an outdated age of consent is frankly irrelevant to said judgment. Unless it's proven andrew was aware that the girl was being paid/forced to sleep with him I dont care.
As for skeeviness: Hugh Hefner has been doing worse for 40 years and none of you started a thread over it.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
By law, she was. Her age rendered her, legally, incapable of making such a decision or entering a contract for such a relationship.
Watch the law go *poof* when it conserns a member of the royal famiky. This isn't all that bad at first glance, the rumours about some members of the Dutch royal family are much much worse, and probably true.By law, she was. Her age rendered her, legally, incapable of making such a decision or entering a contract for such a relationship.
club pinoccio. A sexclub that is part of a pedophile network up to the highest of government in both Belgium and the Netherlands, untouchable.
Google Helsinki commision and 'Demmink', thanks USA for taking this serious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDiZ3aCJp18
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Taking into consideration that the chances prince andrew will ever be tried under any court of law beside a british one is nil: I find I do not care about the local age of consent laws.
I agree it's unlikely that he'll face charges. It's up to the state of New York wether they charge him or not, and if he doesn't appear in court willingly, I'd expect that the UK government will find some plausible excuse of why he can't be extradited (I could be wrong, but I don't think royals other than the Queen are protected by immunity) Taking into consideration that the chances prince andrew will ever be tried under any court of law beside a british one is nil: I find I do not care about the local age of consent laws.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
All we can do on this thread is morally judge; that he did it in a nation is clinging to an outdated age of consent is frankly irrelevant to said judgment. Unless it's proven andrew was aware that the girl was being paid/forced to sleep with him I dont care.
As for skeeviness: Hugh Hefner has been doing worse for 40 years and none of you started a thread over it.
I would have agreed with you (that is, I wouldn't have cared much) if it was just about the local age of consent. Admittedly, it's entirely possible that the woman is lying through her teeth about being exploited.All we can do on this thread is morally judge; that he did it in a nation is clinging to an outdated age of consent is frankly irrelevant to said judgment. Unless it's proven andrew was aware that the girl was being paid/forced to sleep with him I dont care.
As for skeeviness: Hugh Hefner has been doing worse for 40 years and none of you started a thread over it.
Nobody gives a shit about Hugh Hefner. Neither would anyone care about Andrew Albert Christian Edward if he wasn't born in a family that enjoys state-given privileges that nobody else has, for absolutely no good reason.
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
I agree it's unlikely that he'll face charges. It's up to the state of New York wether they charge him or not, and if he doesn't appear in court willingly, I'd expect that the UK government will find some plausible excuse of why he can't be extradited (I could be wrong, but I don't think royals other than the Queen are protected by immunity)
The excuse probably being no politician wanting to commit suicide by extraditing a citizen for something not illegal at home. I agree it's unlikely that he'll face charges. It's up to the state of New York wether they charge him or not, and if he doesn't appear in court willingly, I'd expect that the UK government will find some plausible excuse of why he can't be extradited (I could be wrong, but I don't think royals other than the Queen are protected by immunity)
The issue is that the only part of this that matters is if andrew was aware that the girl was being paid/forced to sleep with him. If you cant prove that the only charge is that of age of consent, and enforcing new york's outdated morals in Britain isnt exactly going to appeal to the voters, the royal status of the accused merely amplifies this sentiment.
Originally Posted by :
I would have agreed with you (that is, I wouldn't have cared much) if it was just about the local age of consent. Admittedly, it's entirely possible that the woman is lying through her teeth about being exploited.
I dont care because the rape/prostitution allegations is a dead end case, not only do you need to prove that the woman was forced/paid to sleep with him, you also need to prove that andrew, as a third paty to her and this Epstien, was both aware of her age and of said coercion. I would have agreed with you (that is, I wouldn't have cared much) if it was just about the local age of consent. Admittedly, it's entirely possible that the woman is lying through her teeth about being exploited.
Unless the prosecution is literally omniscient the chances of that are currently non existant. Thus I dont care, both because of the flimsyness of the situation and to preserve my sanity from this futile train of thought.
Originally Posted by :
Nobody gives a shit about Hugh Hefner. Neither would anyone care about Andrew Albert Christian Edward if he wasn't born in a family that enjoys state-given privileges that nobody else has, for absolutely no good reason.
Whatever. Monarchies are hit or miss, try to avoid imprinting your resentment over your nation's miss upon our hit.Nobody gives a shit about Hugh Hefner. Neither would anyone care about Andrew Albert Christian Edward if he wasn't born in a family that enjoys state-given privileges that nobody else has, for absolutely no good reason.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Rhyf':
You are aware that those Judeo-Christian morals were/are often honored in the breach? Both religions included rituals of atonement/reconciliation precisely because that standard is often unattainable in practice.
This is true but I think Rhyfelwyr still has a good point. Mistakes happen but it's a lot easier to avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous consent if you're trying to avoid sex altogether. Rhyf':
You are aware that those Judeo-Christian morals were/are often honored in the breach? Both religions included rituals of atonement/reconciliation precisely because that standard is often unattainable in practice.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
JudaeoChristian morality is a primary factor behind the victimization of sex-crime victims. In reality, these crimes are trivial, and only cause suffering because the victims are made to feel unsafe and demeaned. One of the greatest ironies of feminism is that it's success will see the undercutting of one of its chief spurs.
So basically, what you are saying is that if it weren't for Judeo-Christian morality people wouldn't really mind getting raped? That's ridiculous. First of all, ideals of chastity and abstinence before marriage are not just Judeo-Christian constructs, they are/were present in Chinese and Maya culture as well, to give two examples. JudaeoChristian morality is a primary factor behind the victimization of sex-crime victims. In reality, these crimes are trivial, and only cause suffering because the victims are made to feel unsafe and demeaned. One of the greatest ironies of feminism is that it's success will see the undercutting of one of its chief spurs.
And while rape victims do experience feelings of guilt and shame as a result of their perceived loss of virtue, this is not the only cause of suffering. Rape victims can suffer from physical injury, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychological trauma of rape comes not just from cultural/religious guilt but also from the violent, painful nature of the experience and the complete loss of control to another person. Seriously, sexual crimes are far from trivial, even without Judeo-Christian morality.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
By law, she was. Her age rendered her, legally, incapable of making such a decision or entering a contract for such a relationship.
Take the case against the certified asshole Berlusconi http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ion-probe.htmlBy law, she was. Her age rendered her, legally, incapable of making such a decision or entering a contract for such a relationship.
Look at her, would you expect she is not 18. Many grey areas when it comes to sexual maturity. If she said she is 30 I would believe her.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
And while rape victims do experience feelings of guilt and shame as a result of their perceived loss of virtue, this is not the only cause of suffering. Rape victims can suffer from physical injury, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychological trauma of rape comes not just from cultural/religious guilt but also from the violent, painful nature of the experience and the complete loss of control to another person. Seriously, sexual crimes are far from trivial, even without Judeo-Christian morality.
I'm glad that you challenged that nonsense.And while rape victims do experience feelings of guilt and shame as a result of their perceived loss of virtue, this is not the only cause of suffering. Rape victims can suffer from physical injury, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychological trauma of rape comes not just from cultural/religious guilt but also from the violent, painful nature of the experience and the complete loss of control to another person. Seriously, sexual crimes are far from trivial, even without Judeo-Christian morality.
Most eminently not nonsense.
"Injury" is why rape should be treated as assault.
"Injury" is why rape should be treated as assault.
Hugh Hefner, whatever else one wishes to say of him, has been more or less practicing what he preaches since the late 1950s. If anything, his forays into marriage run counter to his norm far more than his libidinal excesses.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Most eminently not nonsense.
"Injury" is why rape should be treated as assault.
Physical injury and religious guilt are not the only forms of trauma rape victims suffer from, like I said earlier. Being raped involves having your body forcefully used by another person. The nature of the crime goes above and beyond ordinary assault, which in and of itself is not "trivial". Most eminently not nonsense.
"Injury" is why rape should be treated as assault.
I've been doing some research and trying to find information on how rape is experienced by the victims in more sexually-permissive societies but so far I've come up with nothing. I did find this article though, on whether or not rape is universal: Is Rape a Cultural Universal? A Re-examination of the Ethnographic Data
One anthropologist wrote that:
"Nowadays the nearest approach to rape would appear to be the kind of seduction tactic used
by some men when they accost a woman working alone in a secluded garden. Such men wait
in hiding until the woman starts out for home with a heavy load of firewood and produce on
her back. The seducer then sneaks up behind her and topples her backward by pulling on the
heavy load she carries. The woman's burden helps to keep her pinned to the ground so that
the man has less difficulty in holding her. Moreover, all informants agree, 'women who work
alone in gardens don't dislike being accosted and don't fight very hard.'"
So it appears that maybe this is one instance where the victims don't suffer very much from being raped, however we don't know if the women really "don't dislike being accosted" or if the informants were just justifying their own actions.
Also, according to the article rape is punished even in societies which are supposedly accepting of rape. At any rate it is clear that the victimization of sex crimes is not just a symptom of Judeo-Christian morality.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
So basically, what you are saying is that if it weren't for Judeo-Christian morality people wouldn't really mind getting raped? That's ridiculous. First of all, ideals of chastity and abstinence before marriage are not just Judeo-Christian constructs, they are/were present in Chinese and Maya culture as well, to give two examples.
And while rape victims do experience feelings of guilt and shame as a result of their perceived loss of virtue, this is not the only cause of suffering. Rape victims can suffer from physical injury, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychological trauma of rape comes not just from cultural/religious guilt but also from the violent, painful nature of the experience and the complete loss of control to another person. Seriously, sexual crimes are far from trivial, even without Judeo-Christian morality.
I think you are misinterpreting Montmorency statement - he was saying Judeo-Christian morality is a key source of the Victim blaming of Rape survivors - how the actual survivor feels will never be different - how society treats the survivor is the difference and we don't have a very good track record in the Christian world (still far better than the Islamic world tho...)So basically, what you are saying is that if it weren't for Judeo-Christian morality people wouldn't really mind getting raped? That's ridiculous. First of all, ideals of chastity and abstinence before marriage are not just Judeo-Christian constructs, they are/were present in Chinese and Maya culture as well, to give two examples.
And while rape victims do experience feelings of guilt and shame as a result of their perceived loss of virtue, this is not the only cause of suffering. Rape victims can suffer from physical injury, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychological trauma of rape comes not just from cultural/religious guilt but also from the violent, painful nature of the experience and the complete loss of control to another person. Seriously, sexual crimes are far from trivial, even without Judeo-Christian morality.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO