3 ms·
I simply struggle to see it as an 'especially egregious' act of sexual predation when the facts are on the ground, or rather, obscured and unknown. I'm saying t
by claudiawerner 4y ago
I simply struggle to see it as an 'especially egregious' act of sexual predation when the facts are on the ground, or rather, obscured and unknown. I'm saying that the assumption that a difference in power is enough to turn a relationship from 'weird but OK' to 'egregious sexual predation' does not always hold, and it's hard to see where it does hold without removing all agency from the 'victim'.
- wizofaus 4y agoUm, the facts aren't really that obscure or unknown - the evidence Ms Giuffre was a pawn in Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, one that Prince Andrew was happy to take advantage of, is pretty compelling, even if not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, she admitted to being involved in recruiting for it (while under 18), which was almost certainly a decision made out of immaturity, given her role now running Speak Out/Act/Reclaim.