Andrew and Epstein: Semantics In Defense of Deviants

Andrew and Epstein: Semantics In Defense of Deviants

Andrew and Epstein: Semantics In Defense of Deviants

It’s been a few days since BBC’s train wreck of an interview with Prince Andrew regarding his friendship with the late Jeffrey Epstein. In case you missed it, here’s a few moments from the highlight reel:

“Unbecoming conduct” becomes a “polite” way to describe a sex offender? Okay. Prince Andrew also claimed to stay at Epstein’s mansion in New York out of sheer convenience:

It was a convenient place to stay. I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgement was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that’s just the way it is.-Prince Andrew

Eighth in line for the throne, Prince Andrew shacks up with Epstein because his home was “a convenient place to stay”? You mean to tell us that he could not afford a suite at a top New York hotel? Nope, the prince did this because he was doing the “honorable” thing by allowing the friendship a period of a four-day breakup. If you think this is bad, in come the socialites. This from British socialite and author of a best-selling biography of Princess Diana, Lady Colin Campbell:

You all seem to have forgotten that Jeffrey Epstein, the offense with which he was charged and for which he was imprisoned, was soliciting prostitution from minors. That is not the same thing as pedophilia.”-Lady Colin Campbell, Good Morning Britain

Tell that to Jane Doe, who was 15 at the time Jeffrey Epstein allegedly sought her out and flew her to his New Mexico ranch under the guise of “helping girls from poorer backgrounds”. The trip came complete with a $5,000 check in return for Jane Doe losing her innocence.

Let’s take a guess, Lady Colin, should we call ol’ Jeff a “good samaritan” because he wanted to “help out” young girls? I mean, it was not too much to ask these unassuming young women for a massage now, was it? Why pay for a massage from a professional when he could get one for free from a 16 year-old? Hey, he had plenty to choose from on his private island. Lady Colin Campbell continued to argue the point that a “minor” is not a “child”.

If we define the word “minor”, according to our friends at Merriam-Webster, we will see it is defined as a person who is not yet old enough to have the rights of an adult. So, a minor is a child because at some juncture, a minor has an adult making decisions for him or her. Granted, pedophilia may have a clinical definition that differs from that of an individual who likes to solicit prostitutes to psychological scholars but the fact remains that Jeffrey Epstein was a sexual deviant who took advantage of minors on both counts. To say that Epstein was not a pedophile is to suggest that all young women he took advantage of were not pre-pubescent. Does Lady Colin know this for a fact? Still, there are people who will argue semantics:

Point taken. But technically, these girls were all still children at the time. The “honorable”, Prince Andrew threw excuses at Emily Maitlis during his interview, stating that most of Epstein’s shady dealings were “going on in the United States” and he “wasn’t a party to it and knew nothing about it.” Because elite Brits never do corruption, right? At least not the Royals. They can’t sully themselves by being associated with acts of depravity from across the pond. But they can certainly bunk up with the person committing the disgusting acts for a few days out of “sympathy” and “convenience”.

The matter is, we are not talking about random citizens here. We are talking about individuals who have power and influence over political decision-makers and leaders by means of wealth. We are talking about people who are, like Prince Andrew, immune to real-world consequences. We are talking about individuals defending them and in some cases, their explaining away bad behavior. The scary concept behind all of this is the twisting of language. These elites are actually arguing semantics over deplorable acts involving children. It becomes “honorable” to stay in the home of someone who molests teenage girls and throws them into prostitution rings because you’re a “nice guy” and don’t want to hurt the poor scumbag’s feelings? Soliciting kids for sexual acts is not defined as deviant, it’s just “unbecoming conduct”? And, heavens, no, uneducated peasants of the world! Don’t dare confuse soliciting prostitution from minors with pedophilia.

Photo Credit:
WikiMedia Commons/Chatham House [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)]

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Written by

6 Comments
  • Kevin says:

    If this were the a typical “adult has sex with child” scenario, the adult would be imprisoned or, if that statue of limitations had passed, the adult would be ostracized to a lonely, sad existence. Given the focus is on the member of the Royal family, how does the family toss him to the waste heap of past horrible sex offenders? It probably also is ingratiating to the British people that Andrew receives some “salary” from the tax payers.

    I think he’s guilty of sex with a child and I hope the Queen banishes him to some far away Commonwealth country where he can wither and die … and enforce that he remain 500′ from anyone under the age of 18.

    • Boobah says:

      “It probably also is ingratiating* to the British people that Andrew receives some “salary” from the tax payers.”

      Pretty sure you don’t mean that the British people are thankful that an ephebophile** (or at least an associate of an ephebophile) gets money from their government, but that’s what you’ve written.

      * “ingratiating” is a relative of “gratitude,” and to be ingratiating is to attempt to convince someone to be thankful to you, usually with an eye towards getting a favor later. In short, rep grinding.

      ** pedophiles prefer pre-pubescents, hebephiles prefer pubescents, and ephebophiles prefer post-pubescents but pre-adult. Usually, the people who rev an ephebophile’s engine are aged 15-19.

  • GWB says:

    Eighth in line for the throne
    What that means is, absent a nuclear or SMOD scenario, Andrew is much like Hillary Clinton – never going to be president king.

    soliciting prostitution from minors. That is not the same thing as pedophilia.
    Well, yes, that’s correct. “Pedophilia” is also not the legal term for a crime – that would be something like “sex with a minor”. Also, no, it’s not pedophilia in the broader sense – it’s merely pimping out little Sally for that other guy who IS a pedophile. And it ranks just as high on the evil-done scale.

    a “minor” is not a “child”
    Perhaps, at some point high on the age bracket (not 15, imo), that is true. I have argued that I think we have set our transition points from “child” to “adult” too high (and, yet, not high enough, given the number of children past the age of majority currently in our society). But, legally? No.

    a sexual deviant
    Funny how out of vogue that term has become since the late 80s or so. Gee, I wonder what changed……..

    But technically, these girls were all still children at the time.
    Well, no. That’s the point of the legal phrase “minor” – it is a legal definition unhampered by the connotations surrounding “child” and “adult”. I’ll bet some of those girls were women in some ways (besides being “pubescent” or post-), and children in others. “Child” has feelings associated with it, and a person can move from “young woman” to “child” and back again with alacrity over a day. It’s also why “child rape” is used when people want a visceral reaction, instead of the more clinical “forced sex with a minor”. But, as mentioned above, the latter is what the indictment will read.

    Having said all that, I think Andrew is probably dirty. Even if he never partook of sex with those girls, he had to know something distasteful was going on. And Epstein is was* just a … nasty individual, the more we learn about him. His exposure (and death) has revealed much about our elites that they would wish hidden.

    (* He didn’t kill himself, but he is dead.)

  • […] * I was so sorry to hear of Prince Andrew’s impending suicide. […]

  • Joe says:

    Interesting that the Queen sacks her own son over this yet makes no bold move to save England’s sovereignty from the EU and back Brexit. It appears she sees pedogate as more of a threat than the fate of her nation. Telling.

  • […] Girls – Andrew and Epstein: Semantics In Defense of Deviants. British Royalty and Aristocracy explaining away Epstein (who didn’t kill […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram