NSFW: The latest tranche of Epstein evidence – in pictures

[Jarhyn]

Did you or did you not say, point blank, that thebeave is a paedophile

Not that I recall in this thread. Rather, I think he is a pedophile enabler, though, which seems rather trite as a distinction.

Or that, at any rate, you believe that he is one

At best I can say he is an enabler and a pedophile cheerleader.

That said, the "15 is not a child" argument, when presented with adults who fuck 15 year olds constitutes grooming in any setting where a 15 year old can read it... Which happens to include this place.

If YES, on what do you base that accusation

Mostly that whenever TheBeave has a contribution to a discussion of child molestation, it's universally a contribution that downplays the whole child molestation aspect or creates noise that obfuscates the events.

I pay good attention to who types what, and I have seen zero reason to leap to such a terrible accusation. Why do you?

Because I can see a consistent pattern among people in general: when people "run interference" for someone, generally they play on the same team.

I can and will defend people who make AI porn of anything that is not identifiably similar to a real living, human child (including many things that are identifiably child-like but also identifiably not real children), to include pretty much every hentai ever illustrated, even the ones where the characters get chopped up by laser machines.

I will publicly and happily support people's rights to that disgusting shit.

TheBeave could start a thread tomorrow extolling the virtues of AI porn of cat boys doing things even the greeks would hesitate to put on an urn, and while I might say "ew, gross", I wouldn't call him a pedophile (assuming he didn't argue for realizing images like that with human children).

My accusations come specifically from the fact that someone is in here pretending that an island owned by an infamous sex pest containing numerous objects of sexual application was not used for sex tourism of the sort that requires an island.

If people just wanted to have a completely legal orgy, you don't need to take the weekend to take a private jet to a private island.

Alright, Jarhyn. I was referring to post #13. That post starts with a quote from me, and a response from you immediately following.

But I do not wish to belabor the point or pursue this any further, as it's a huge derail, and I started it.

What, the one where I said u apologetically that I want to invent ideas for the world that allow us all to realize a future where sex pests like Epstein never develop because the humans that could develop like that are developed into something else, perhaps someone happy with AI generated cat girl porn or whatever.

Then you called that idea horrifying and "brave new world".

Fuck literally everyone, however, who decides nothing can be done to move us towards that.

We can clearly identify those who are helping and hindering by people who are making every excuse not to investigate a sex pest or to pretend fairly damning evidence of being a sex pest isn't damning.

"Oh, it was for a friend's dental practice" (a creepy room filled with dictator masks with a lone dental chair in the middle).

"Oh, they're just sex toys".

Mmm, dildoing and dentistry!

Or maybe we can recognize that when those appear on a private island infamous for being a place where rich men can do anything they want, it takes on a darker hue, and maybe we should be swabbing for evidence.

We SHOULD wonder at least enough to see investigation happen, honest answers rendered, and all sex pests discovered and jailed, and wonder at how we can educate our children to prevent, detect, and otherwise constrain sex pests from sex pestering, entirely, forever.

One current detection mechanism that is startlingly effective is to just... Look at who actually defends the sex pests and how they defend them.

The sex pests can afford their own goddamn lawyers.

 

[Derec]

As I’ve said, repeatedly, my concern with prostitution is the part re: consent.

You support criminalization even when it's consensual.

However, studies have shown that the average age for females to enter prostitution is far below the age of consent.

Studies done by your fellow Prohibitionists. Same studies that count a sex worker moving to another country of her own accord as "trafficking".
Sorry, I do not place much stock into such studies.

I’ve read studies that say on average, for girls, 12-14. I know you don’t frequent child prostitutes. But there is a big question as to how much choice someone who began to be prostituted at such a young age feels they actually have at 18 or 21.

I think Prohibitionists like you grossly inflate the frequency of these cases, but I am sure they happen.
However, do you think this is more likely where consensual adult sex is legal, and law enforcement can focus on underage and forced prostitution and can even get help from the legitimate sex trade, or do you think it's more likely where the entire industry is driven underground because of people like you, and law enforcement wastes all their time and money going after consenting adults, even going as far as setting them up with sting operations?

 

[Toni]

As I’ve said, repeatedly, my concern with prostitution is the part re: consent.

You support criminalization even when it's consensual.

However, studies have shown that the average age for females to enter prostitution is far below the age of consent.

Studies done by your fellow Prohibitionists. Same studies that count a sex worker moving to another country of her own accord as "trafficking".
Sorry, I do not place much stock into such studies.

I’ve read studies that say on average, for girls, 12-14. I know you don’t frequent child prostitutes. But there is a big question as to how much choice someone who began to be prostituted at such a young age feels they actually have at 18 or 21.

I think Prohibitionists like you grossly inflate the frequency of these cases, but I am sure they happen.
However, do you think this is more likely where consensual adult sex is legal, and law enforcement can focus on underage and forced prostitution and can even get help from the legitimate sex trade, or do you think it's more likely where the entire industry is driven underground because of people like you, and law enforcement wastes all their time and money going after consenting adults, even going as far as setting them up with sting operations?

We’ve been through this before. For quite a while, I used to support legalization at least decriminalization. And then I began to read studies that indicated that legalization does NOT reduce coerced or underaged prostitution but actually increases it. In Nevada, sex work is legal in a couple of counties. That has NOT meant that all or most sex work has migrated from Las Vegas but is its own draw. And there is still a market for underaged prostitutes which absolutely should be illegal, with stiff penalties for the customers and the traffickers.

 

[Derec]

We’ve been through this before. For quite a while, I used to support legalization at least decriminalization.

Yes, we have. And, yes, so you keep claiming. And yet ...

And then I began to read studies that indicated that legalization does NOT reduce coerced or underaged prostitution but actually increases it.

... you only seem to be reading propaganda from the Prohibitionist sources that do things like for example count sex workers moving on their own accord as "trafficking". There is no evidence that legalization increases "coerced or underaged prostitution", and no feasible mechanism as to why such should be the case.
Note also that sex workers themselves want their trade to be legal, and do not support radfem attempts to "help" them by prosecuting their clients, which you and your Ilk advocate for.

In Nevada, sex work is legal in a couple of counties. That has NOT meant that all or most sex work has migrated from Las Vegas but is its own draw.

That does not mean that sex workers in Las Vegas are "coerced or underaged". It simply means that LV is a major city with many potential customers, and places like Pahrump are an hour drive away. Nevada legislature should have legalized sex work statewide, not just in rural, sparsely populated counties.

And there is still a market for underaged prostitutes which absolutely should be illegal, with stiff penalties for the customers and the traffickers.

I agree that this should be illegal and that law enforcement should focus there, instead of persecuting consenting adults.
I also think customers should only face penalties if they knew, or should have known, the sex worker's age. If for example a sex workers advertises herself to be 21, but is really 17, I do not think the customer did anything wrong.

 

[Toni]

We’ve been through this before. For quite a while, I used to support legalization at least decriminalization.

Yes, we have. And, yes, so you keep claiming. And yet ...

And then I began to read studies that indicated that legalization does NOT reduce coerced or underaged prostitution but actually increases it.

... you only seem to be reading propaganda from the Prohibitionist sources that do things like for example count sex workers moving on their own accord as "trafficking". There is no evidence that legalization increases "coerced or underaged prostitution", and no feasible mechanism as to why such should be the case.

In Nevada, sex work is legal in a couple of counties. That has NOT meant that all or most sex work has migrated from Las Vegas but is its own draw.

That does not mean that sex workers in Las Vegas are "coerced or underaged". It simply means that LV is a major city with many potential customers, and places like Pahrump are an hour drive away. Nevada legislature should have legalized sex work statewide, not just in rural, sparsely populated counties.

And there is still a market for underaged prostitutes which absolutely should be illegal, with stiff penalties for the customers and the traffickers.

I agree that this should be illegal and that law enforcement should focus there, instead of persecuting consenting adults.
I also think customers should only face penalties if they knew, or should have known, the sex worker's age. If for example a sex workers advertises herself to be 21, but is really 17, I do not think the customer did anything wrong.

You assume that the studies I’ve read are propaganda because? The conclusions are at odds with your opinion?

Liquor stores and bars are heavily penalized and even lose their licenses for serving underaged customers, even with an ‘ID.’ Why should not those who work sh to employ prostitutes have the same responsibility?

 

[Derec]

You assume that the studies I’ve read are propaganda because? The conclusions are at odds with your opinion?

Because they have an obvious pro-Prohibition bias and because they do things like I mentioned with trafficking. See this article.
"Human Trafficking" Has Become a Meaningless Term

The exact origin of the term "sex trafficking" is unclear, but according to Alison Bass, author of Getting Screwed: Sex Workers and the Law, it seems to have been developed by anti-prostitution feminists in the 1990s. Bass told me that "trafficking" was used especially to describe the migration of women from the collapsing Soviet Union to the United States. Donna Hughes's seminal 2000 article "The Natasha Trade" defined trafficking specifically as "any practice that involves moving people within and across local or national borders for the purpose of sexual exploitation."
But anti-prostitution activists like Hughes often use “sexual exploitation” to include any kind of prostitution or sex work—in fact, Hughes insists in her article that "trafficking occurs even if the woman consents.” In other words, trafficking can include sex workers who decide to illegally or semi-legally migrate from Eastern Europe to the United States. This describes the majority of women who were said to be "trafficked," according to researchers Robert M. Fuffington and Donna J. Guy. "More often than not," they write in A Global History of Sexuality, "these women have engaged in some form of sex work in their home countries and see work abroad as a chance to improve their circumstances."

As you can see, Prohibitionist feminists whose claims you accept do not care about consent. They are against sex work "even if the woman consents".

Liquor stores and bars are heavily penalized and even lose their licenses for serving underaged customers, even with an ‘ID.’

I disagree with that, and this is something rather unique to the US. Bars and grocery stores in other countries do not card 30 year olds either.

Why should not those who work sh to employ prostitutes have the same responsibility?

What do you think the customers should do? Even ids can be faked.
I think law enforcement should enforce age laws, but I do not think they should go against customers who did nothing wrong. On the other hand, you just want to see more men in prison, even if they were themselves victims of age fraud.

 

[Toni]

Your article quote refers to trafficking, not just sex work and seems to assume that once a sex worker, always a sex worker. The fact is that many individuals are trafficked: transported against their will or under false pretenses. Such individuals may end up working in the food industry, textile industry, as domestic ‘help’ or in sex work, among other lines of work. If your passport is obfuscated and you don’t know the language or the laws, and if you come from someplace where law enforcement t and the government t cannot be trusted, the whole idea of consent is meaningless.

I am very well aware of the fact that some young girls can easily pass for 18+ years old—unless you talk to them for five minutes and actually pay attention. This, btw, was told to me by a young adult man. He said just looking at someone, it’s hard to know but talking to them—you can tell if they are 13 or 15 and not 20. This, btw, is yet another reason why the age to be able to legally participate in sex work should be higher than 18. A 15 year old can pass for 18 fairly easily. As 21 or 25? Not so much, unless the customer is willing to pretend.

 

[WAB]

Did you or did you not say, point blank, that thebeave is a paedophile

Not that I recall in this thread. Rather, I think he is a pedophile enabler, though, which seems rather trite as a distinction.

Or that, at any rate, you believe that he is one

At best I can say he is an enabler and a pedophile cheerleader.

That said, the "15 is not a child" argument, when presented with adults who fuck 15 year olds constitutes grooming in any setting where a 15 year old can read it... Which happens to include this place.

If YES, on what do you base that accusation

Mostly that whenever TheBeave has a contribution to a discussion of child molestation, it's universally a contribution that downplays the whole child molestation aspect or creates noise that obfuscates the events.

I pay good attention to who types what, and I have seen zero reason to leap to such a terrible accusation. Why do you?

Because I can see a consistent pattern among people in general: when people "run interference" for someone, generally they play on the same team.

I can and will defend people who make AI porn of anything that is not identifiably similar to a real living, human child (including many things that are identifiably child-like but also identifiably not real children), to include pretty much every hentai ever illustrated, even the ones where the characters get chopped up by laser machines.

I will publicly and happily support people's rights to that disgusting shit.

TheBeave could start a thread tomorrow extolling the virtues of AI porn of cat boys doing things even the greeks would hesitate to put on an urn, and while I might say "ew, gross", I wouldn't call him a pedophile (assuming he didn't argue for realizing images like that with human children).

My accusations come specifically from the fact that someone is in here pretending that an island owned by an infamous sex pest containing numerous objects of sexual application was not used for sex tourism of the sort that requires an island.

If people just wanted to have a completely legal orgy, you don't need to take the weekend to take a private jet to a private island.

Alright, Jarhyn. I was referring to post #13. That post starts with a quote from me, and a response from you immediately following.

But I do not wish to belabor the point or pursue this any further, as it's a huge derail, and I started it.

What, the one where I said u apologetically that I want to invent ideas for the world that allow us all to realize a future where sex pests like Epstein never develop because the humans that could develop like that are developed into something else, perhaps someone happy with AI generated cat girl porn or whatever.

Then you called that idea horrifying and "brave new world".

Fuck literally everyone, however, who decides nothing can be done to move us towards that.

We can clearly identify those who are helping and hindering by people who are making every excuse not to investigate a sex pest or to pretend fairly damning evidence of being a sex pest isn't damning.

"Oh, it was for a friend's dental practice" (a creepy room filled with dictator masks with a lone dental chair in the middle).

"Oh, they're just sex toys".

Mmm, dildoing and dentistry!

Or maybe we can recognize that when those appear on a private island infamous for being a place where rich men can do anything they want, it takes on a darker hue, and maybe we should be swabbing for evidence.

We SHOULD wonder at least enough to see investigation happen, honest answers rendered, and all sex pests discovered and jailed, and wonder at how we can educate our children to prevent, detect, and otherwise constrain sex pests from sex pestering, entirely, forever.

One current detection mechanism that is startlingly effective is to just... Look at who actually defends the sex pests and how they defend them.

The sex pests can afford their own goddamn lawyers.

Oh for fuck's sake! You said you didn't recall where you accused thebeave of being a paedophile, and I directed you to EXACTLY where you did, and suddenly you forget and begin whining about something else. Jesus fucking Christ, why do you TYPE something and a few posts later pretend you didn't?

Then you go into a tirade about how you tirelessly crusade against "sex pests", as if you invented the idea that sexual offenses are a bad thing. Who the Hell on this board thinks that sex offenses are NOT terrible and disgraceful acts??? Name one.

Who said we should NOT do anything to fight against sex offenses?? You better not be trying to say I do that, or that I take the subject lightly , as if it's trivial. Nobody here, on this board has defended " sex pests" or sex offenders. Only by being overly paranoid could you possibly believe that you are amongst debased cretins who think sexual offenses or offenders are just fine and dandy. You are imagining things, and acting like the valiant lone defender of decency and respect. Sex pests, sex offenders are bad, and should be pursued and caught and exposed. No fucking kidding? Really?

And your plan is to systematically oversee the populace and what? Reeducate, deprogram, reprogram? Who decides how this is done? You? By what authority?

I wanted to stop posting in this thread but your last post called me back. This time I'm ignoring the thread and I won't read any further posts here...