Why is the DOJ Protecting Jeff Epstein

[jh9]

I would just like to note this is exactly the plot of the latest Barry Eisler novel....

I will be super interested to see what her sentence comes too, and if we are suddenly inundated with video of public figures.

I find it hard to believe there aren’t videos.

Dead Man's Switch is a common trope that coexists in real life. See also: Julian Assange / Wikileaks in 2016. I seem to remember that one had a death scare, keys released, checksums on the payload(s) changed and all sorts of shenanigans surrounding it ultimately culminating in nothing. I didn't follow it closely at the time.

Wasn't there also a big kerfuffle after Epstein Most Assuredly Committed Suicide one of his larger residences was cleaned out before the FBI (supposedly) got there? Why dump all the video evidence on the public when you can be the one to cash in on that sweet, sweet blackmail instead of Epstein/Maxwell. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[fatdog]

I think the left is going to find normalizing the pedo's a bridge too far.

[Totem Polar]

I think the left is going to find normalizing the pedo's a bridge too far.

A quick google of “political fertility gap” or “republicans have more kids” will bring up studies/narrative showing that, on average, conservatives have more kids than people on the far left. Look at some of the more egregious school board members to make the news lately, and at least one of the examples discussed here is childless/child free. “They don’t have their own kids, so they are after control of yours…” (-Tim Pool)

All that to say: Yeah, mid-bell curve parents with actual skin in the game will find the boundary that pulls them up off the couch and out into the streets pretty quick when child abuse comes to the table. Hard nopeing in 3, 2, 1.

[Lester Polfus]

I think the left is going to find normalizing the pedo's a bridge too far.

I think it's also a strawman argument that "normalizing pedos" is a goal of "the left."

There are always going to be edgelords on "the left" who will advocate for NAMBLA and such, just like there will always be god fearing GOP church deacons who will bend over an altar boy if they think they can do it without getting caught.

I'm much more friendly with folks on "the left" than most of the folks on this forum. We can have some pretty vigorous debates about all sorts of things like gun control, but I see zero traction for the idea of normalizing pedos. When I hear the words "we should release all non-violent drug offenders from prison," I can virtually be certain that the next breath will be "so we can lock up all the child rapists."

The whole "minor attracted person" thing started based on a paper by an academic at Old Dominion who was specifically referring to adults with pedo urges that hadn't acted on them (yet.) The thought was to figure out ways to keep them from acting on them, which I think is a fine idea as it would save on ammunition and shovels, but Allyn Walker had to put a turd in the punch bowl by drawing a distinction about how the attraction itself wasn't immoral, but the act was. That particular distinction went over about as well as you'd think it would, and ultimately wound up with Walker out of a job. Along the way it was also the base for a bunch of agit-prop.

I think there would be tremendous value in identifying and treating these people before they do anything, if that's even possible. Intellectually, I can even agree that it might be useful for them to feel less "stigmatized" if it made them more likely to seek some kind of treatment, although viscerally I give zero fucks about their feelings. I think getting that kind of research funded and developed is basically a non-starter, even though it might make perfect rational sense, as it will be seen as some how "condoning" pedos.

What I'd really like to see is a system that basically says "We have a treatment modality for people like you. The good news is, it's free of charge. The bad news is, if we catch you doing anything with a kid you're getting a life sentence in Gen Pop and you have to carry around an institutional sized jar of KY jelly around with you."

[Suvorov]

Tinfoil hat moment: You know this push to normalize pedophilia with terms like "Minor Attracted Person"? I feel like that's an attempt at laying the groundwork for if the curtain ever does come down with these dirtbags throughout the organization, they can claim victimhood over being persecuted for their sexual preferences, how dare we shame them etc.

I remember having just such a discussion over a beer or two with a co-worker years ago. He argued that this practice was well accepted in antiquity and only our modern prudish values considered it taboo. He now works for the FBI………

[Tabasco]

I remember having just such a discussion over a beer or two with a co-worker years ago. He argued that this practice was well accepted in antiquity and only our modern prudish values considered it taboo. He now works for the FBI………

That same argument could be used to advocate the continuation of slavery.

[TGS]

I remember having just such a discussion over a beer or two with a co-worker years ago. He argued that this practice was well accepted in antiquity and only our modern prudish values considered it taboo. He now works for the FBI………

He's correct, it's not really a matter of opinion, just a factual observation.

Even today, once you hit puberty you're fair game in the majority of the world....and even in developed countries where it might not be legal it's still not looked at the same way as going after pre-pubescent girls, and certainly not prosecuted with any vigor. We've created a superficial point in age based off a tragically broken school system maturation at which it is deemed culturally acceptable, which isn't really consistent with historic or scientific reasoning. If the idea is that a female at age 15 or 16 isn't emotionally/mentally developed enough for serious adult relationships and the responsibility such entails, well, we should probably move the age of consent to 25 since that's what the science regarding brain development supports. Or, just make it puberty, since that's what is biologically relevant.

Our society is kind of fucked up regarding anything touching sexuality....just look at the reaction to that French movie on Netflix a couple years ago. So, people tend to act all aghast and virtue signal when the topic is broached; but the raw truth is that if we legislated the age of consent to 14, most dudes slamming their fist of righteousness about these issues would be out the very next day trying to bang 14 and 15 year olds, and up until the mid-20th century that was not only legal but morally/ethically acceptable (with the caveat it was usually tied to marriage back then, as opposed to our sexually casual society today).

[JRB]

He's correct, it's not really a matter of opinion, just a factual observation.

Even today, once you hit puberty you're fair game in the majority of the world....and even in developed countries where it might not be legal it's still not looked at the same way as going after pre-pubescent girls, and certainly not prosecuted with any vigor. We've created a superficial point in age based off a tragically broken school system maturation at which it is deemed culturally acceptable, which isn't really consistent with historic or scientific reasoning. If the idea is that a female at age 15 or 16 isn't emotionally/mentally developed enough for serious adult relationships and the responsibility such entails, well, we should probably move the age of consent to 25 since that's what the science regarding brain development supports. Or, just make it puberty, since that's what is biologically relevant.

Our society is kind of fucked up regarding anything touching sexuality....just look at the reaction to that French movie on Netflix a couple years ago. So, people tend to act all aghast and virtue signal when the topic is broached; but the raw truth is that if we legislated the age of consent to 14, most dudes slamming their fist of righteousness about these issues would be out the very next day trying to bang 14 and 15 year olds, and up until the mid-20th century that was not only legal but morally/ethically acceptable (with the caveat it was usually tied to marriage back then, as opposed to our sexually casual society today).

I've noticed the same inconsistencies.

A high school buddy's parents got married only because his Dad at the time was 20 and his Mom had just turned 17 the week before the wedding... and what was illegal as a dating couple was suddenly legal in their locale because they were married but would have stayed illegal as a couple until she was 18. IIRC they'd already been sweethearts a couple years so it started around the time he was 18 and she was 15. Today that'd get a very harsh response.
My buddy was the youngest of three boys and a girl they had together, and last I saw on the book of faces, his parents are still married 45-50+ years later. The horror.

[RevolverRob]

The important part of knowing and understanding history is being able to compare it with a present day context. And thus being able to evaluate and accept or reject both historical and present day standards. In the case of age of consent, historically such a thing was different than it is today. Simultaneously, we can recognize that today we have a much more nuanced view of actual mental development and decision making processes that can inform our modern standards.

Tl;dr: Things were different in the past means at some point a society or culture decided to leave things in the past; our job as present day historians is to understand why that was done. In some cases it was legitimate in others it was not.

---

Anyways:

[jh9]

the raw truth is that if we legislated the age of consent to 14, most dudes slamming their fist of righteousness about these issues would be out the very next day trying to bang 14 and 15 year olds

You're not wrong. That just makes them predatory hypocrites. It's creepy enough to see someone my age with an 18 year old. Knocking a few years off that because "she's legal" is just going from bad to worse.

So, on the one hand yeah, it's absolutely true they were banging tweens on the regular throughout most of history. On the other hand, they were owning slaves, treating women as chattel, not taking "no" for an answer (be it from the wife or from the help) and generally doing a bunch of shitty things. Just because it was deemed acceptable then doesn't mean it's unreasonable to say it's not anymore.

The Puritan angle is interesting. But then you want to talk about fucked up sexuality there you're getting into purity rings, daddy-daughter "date night" and a whole litany of shit that I still kind of look at askance when I realize it's happening in the US in the 21st century.

the caveat it was usually tied to marriage back then

Marriage as an institution was very different then. More akin to an exchange of property from the father to the new husband than any sort of "two people amicably gettin hitched cuz reasons" you might see today.

People married younger even as recently as 50 years ago. But those were very different times, during which women in general didn't have much choice. Independence, hell. It's been in my lifetime that some banks would require a woman get her husband's permission to open a checking account.

We used to do things differently. This is one of the cases where mores have changed with the times and I think we're better off for it. If that means a creeper can't get some strange younger than his scotch well that's a feature not a bug.