In some ways it's a distinction without a difference...

...but I suspect because the allegation is that Epstein forced her to have sex with Andrew, not that Andrew forced her to have sex against her will. So from Andrew's perspective the alleged act, if it happened, was consensual because she was willing to do it. But she was only willing to do it because Epstein allegedly "forced" - or paid - her to do it.

Either way if she had sex without her consent it's rape in my book, and the lawyers can argue over semantics if they care to. And if she was 17, whether she was paid or not is not really the point. Honestly, you know if someone actually wants to or not, and if they don't and you go ahead anyway you're the worst kind of scum.

I have an extremely low opinion of Andrew - like most in the business world - however this whole thing seems unlikely at first glance. But that doesn't mean it's untrue, and the allegation needs to be taken seriously and vigorously pursued. One of the reasons so few sexual assaults are reported is a reluctance to believe the accuser, which means two things: every allegation needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness, and those who claim it when it's not true are among the lowest of the low, because in fact they're perpetuating a culture of acceptable sexual violence by normalising the idea that the accuser may be lying.

I have no idea if Virginia Andrews is lying or not. But I do find it difficult to conceive of Andrew - puffed-up, ineffective idiot though I think he is - as a rapist. All said and done, though, she said he did and that needs to be properly, seriously, thoroughly chased down.

Posted By: Old Man, Jan 22, 20:06:57