Search Box

Saturday, January 17, 2015

A "sex slave" speaks

The New York Post, whose editorial section usually exhibits far more common sense than that of the New York Times, has been running a series of extraordinarily silly articles on its front page recently. The latest is, Teen 'sex slave' diary: Epstein didn't want 'black girls'.

The woman hurling all of these accusations, Virginia Roberts, was never a "sex slave" -- she was a prostitute. A slave is chattel, has no freedom, and is owned by another person. At age 17, Roberts was reportedly paid $15,000 to have sex with Prince Andrew. That's not slavery; that's hooking.

At least the Post had the sense to put quotation marks around "sex slave." (It's not clear why they did the same for "black girls.")

An excerpt:

Prince Andrew’s freaky ­financier pal Jeffrey Epstein was not only a pedophile but a bedroom bigot, too, according to a woman who claims she was his teen “sex slave.”

Epstein would bed as many as seven young girls — some as young as 12 — each day, but never black girls, Virginia Roberts told her lawyers, according to a transcript of the conversation that was filed in court.


If billionaire Epstein bedded 12-year-old girls, then he should go to jail for child molestation. (He has already served one sentence for that crime.)

But the concept of a "bedroom bigot" is one of the most inane I've heard in a while. The vast majority of people have a "type" that they are attracted to. This isn't a matter of choice, but of instinct.

If someone who prefers white girls is a "bedroom bigot," then are gay people "bedroom sexists?" After all, they want to exclude the other gender when it comes to their sex lives. 

(Aren't we supposed to be an "inclusive" society?)

Are 20-year-olds who don't want to go to bed with 70-year-olds "bedroom ageists?"

And are people who prefer slim sex partners "bedroom weight-ists?"

I could go on, but you get the point: political correctness = insanity.

There's a corollary to that rule: people who use political correctness to advance their personal fortunes are dishonest manipulators. 

My guess, and it's only a guess: Roberts tried to get Epstein to buy her silence, he refused to pay up, and so now she's coming public with her "revelations." 

Shame on the Post for allowing her to do so through them. 

7 comments:

Steven said...

Political correctness has come to something when someone is complaining that a child molester is racist for not molesting black kids. Or, to be fair, a bigot for not molesting a proportionally diverse sample of kids. It's like a sick parody by a joke news site.

And you're totally right....we don't choose what turns us on. We get a free pass in that area. Plenty of people have racial preferences in the bedroom. I knew a white girl who only liked black guys.

Gilbert Ratchet said...

That critique is somewhat contradictory, like "the food is so awful, and the portions are so small." Good thing that Epstein was a "bedroom bigot" - black girls were spared from his predations!

John Craig said...

Gilbert --
Ha, you're right, in a sense he was "discriminating" against white girls.

Anonymous said...

Correct:

Quotations = Post's way of being "politically correct."

We do choose what turns us on, but only semi-consciously (through Hollywood/VanNuys-style brainwashing)

John Craig said...

Anon --
Gotta disagree. I think being attracted to someone else is involuntary. Otherwise why would child molesters be child molesters, when they know that what they want will make them appear completely disgusting in the eyes of just about everyone else?

The argument I usually use when some guy says that being gay is a lifestyle "choice" is, if you wanted to, could you just will yourself into wanting to suck dicks?

That usually resolves the argument.

Anonymous said...

Choosing male/female partner does not seem the same as choosing a partner based on some "innate" skin color preference at all (imho).

Although, in prison, I suppose folks do will themselves to enjoy giving blow jobs, so perhaps it depends on circumstances.

Sure, it's scary/unpleasant to think you've been brainwashed by media/authority figures. Can you really believe that you've been immune to these influences?

Preferring children as sex partners would seem to have something to do w/an abnormal psychology, either from genetics or (more likely) environmental influences, but I'm not a trained psych person myself.

John Craig said...

Anon --
There have been all sorts of studies which have proved that our physical preference ARE innate and not a matter of media "brainwashing." It's instinctive, and our instincts are not changed by however many movies or television shows or advertisements we see.

Otherwise, we'd all end up with the exact same desires, as we're all exposed to the same media influences.