Tag Archives: sex

Fmr. President Clinton Connected To Billionaire Engulfed in “Sex Slave” and Underage Girl Scandal

Washington D.C.- It is a story of sex slaves, underage girls, murder, a billionaire, a prince and at least one former U.S. President. What has been the biggest scandal in the UK since World War II has now come to the U.S. and may involve former President Bill Clinton.

The story surrounds billionaire Jeffery Epstein who served time in 2008 for soliciting prostitution. That charge came as part of a plea deal. The story begins in 2005 when Epstein was investigated after a woman reported that he paid her 14 year-old daughter $300 dollars for sex. Since that initial claim, there have been over 40 women who have come forward with claims that Epstein is a sexual predator and that he not only abused them but shared these young girls with famous and powerful friends.

Flash forward to today and a lawsuit is underway in Palm Beach, Florida. In that lawsuit, multiple mentions of former President Bill Clinton who reportedly took multiple trips to Epstein’s private island called Little St. James, between 2002 and 2005.

According to testimony in the lawsuit, at least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly. She is referred to as Jane Doe 102.

According to the UK Daily Mail “She was forced to live as one of Epstein’s underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with… politicians, businessmen, royalty, people working in academics, etc,.”

To be clear, in 2008 when the plead deal happened, Clinton cut off ties with Epstein. Or did he? According again to the Daily Mail, “The lawsuit claims that Clinton was friends with an unnamed woman who ‘kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein… and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses’.”

While he cut off ties with Epstein, this woman’s abuses apparently did not end their relationship as she was reportedly one of the 400 guests at Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding.

So what did Bill Clinton know? What exactly was he a part of? According to The Smoking Gun, “As part of a civil suit filed against Epstein by several of his victims, lawyers for the women floated the possibility of subpoenaing Clinton since he “might well be a source of relevant information” about Epstein’s activities. While Clinton was never deposed, lawyers obtained Epstein’s computerized phone directory, which included “e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band),” according to a court filing.”

In the video above Ben Swann interviews several people about the Clinton connection, the connection of Prince Andrew the Duke of York and why he has now been dragged into this case and reveals that famous U.S. attorney Alan Dershowitz is now being accused of having sex with underage girls provided by Epstein as well. Watch the video above for more details.

No Sex Please: We’re Californian

Rape may represent the greatest possible violation against a human being except, perhaps, for murder.

Any decent person sympathizes with the intent of those who would seek to prevent it by any reasonable means. Moreover, there are plenty of statistics regarding the prevalence of rape in our society – mostly, but not exclusively against women – that indicate a moral and cultural epidemic that must be addressed. I, like far too many people, am close to more than one victim of this evil and so nothing I write here is written lightly.

But I am genuinely concerned about what has recently occurred in California with a view to tackling the crime of rape on college campuses. As is so often the case when the details of behavior are legislated in reaction to the actions of the worst people among us, the results are likely to be much less noble than the intention, because the legislation eliminates the most general rights that should be enjoyed by everyone at all times, to protect a few people some of the time.

Late last week, the first state bill to require colleges to adopt an “affirmative consent” model in their sexual assault policies passed the California senate unanimously.

This bill seeks to change the perfectly moral and behaviorally natural “no means no” standard of consent to sexual activity into “everything except an explicitly verbalized “yes” (along with the acquisition of positive evidence of the same that can be later presented just in case you are ever accused of anything untoward), means “no”.

Let us be absolutely clear what such a rule does and does not do. It does not require that sex always be consensual. That is already the law and the policy of any sane institution. Rather, this bill seeks to make most heretofore consensual sexual activity between adults punishable by requiring a specific form of consent – explicit agreement to a specific request.

Most consensual sexual activity between normal people does not involve the kind of explicit, subsequently provable statement of consent, that this bill demands. Sex usually happens between people who trust each other and – precisely because they know each other well enough to engage in sexual activity – wouldn’t wish to receive or provide such encounter-specific and explicit consent to continue with what to both parties is natural behavior – behavior which, some would say, is often most fulfilling when engaged in with just that trust, naturalness and spontaneity.

The Californian bill would make the majority of such normal encounters punishable. Avoidance of punishment would require either a) refraining from normal (consensual) sexual activity or b) engaging in positive behavior that is mandated by the rule. Both are affronts to basic human rights.

Moreover, the California bill states that past sexual encounters or a romantic relationship do(es) not imply consent. It also specifies that “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”.

Seriously? It is of course true that “a current relationship or prior sex doesn’t imply consent” per se, but “a current relationship or prior sex” most certainly does bear on what does imply consent. Consider an ongoing sexual relationship. Does explicit consent have to be given for the 200th sexual encounter between the couple? And if so, how should it be recorded? That there is clear implied ongoing consent of a kind that stands behind most sexual encounters among human beings is not a prescriptive statement or a normative one: it’s just a recognition of reality. California is thus making normal sexual encounters – of which the sexual act is the culmination – punishable.

Of course, relationships can end and the contextual element of consent can thereby be changed. But consider a relationship that ends acrimoniously. By California’s new bill, since the man cannot provide proof of explicit consent for that last sexual encounter, he has, a priori committed an offense if the woman seeks to declare that an offense was committed. He is, in other words, guilty until he can prove himself innocent. “Slippery slope” does not even come close.

Were this rule to be generalized beyond California’s educational institutions, then most men who’ve ever engaged in sex would be deemed guilty of having engaged in non-consensual sex. Of course that is absurd: all they would really have been guilty of is failing to engage in a mandated form of speech.

For what it’s worth (and it is worth a great deal), the mandating of speech or behavior is against all premises of common law and the healthiest norms of a genuinely free society. And it may even be against the first amendment: even if California’s bill doesn’t force specific words to be said before sex, it nevertheless does force certain behaviors or speech that is designed to elicit a certain response.

Defenders of such a rule might argue only that nothing is mandated because no one is forced to have sex. That would, of course, be to miss the point entirely, but let’s address it for completeness: if someone is willing to have consensual sex with me, then we have a natural right as human beings to engage in that activity, regardless of how we have expressed our willingness to do so. No public institution can impinge on that – or any other – natural right.

Let us generalize away from sex to focus on the principles at stake here.

If you were to say to me that I may not perform any other activity unless I communicate something to someone in a certain way, then you would not be protecting anyone from the outcome of that activity: you would be merely removing my freedom to engage in it with the positive purpose of controlling my communication. You would be preventing me from exercising a natural right, from being a normal human being, going about my business without harming others. This is exactly what happens in prison: which operates by firstly removing a natural freedom (to move freely, for example), and then requiring the incarcerated person to earn that right back in limited fashion as a privilege by performing positive, specified activities. I truly don’t wish to be over-dramatic or reactionary, and obviously the degree of infringement of freedom caused by California’s bill is not quantitatively comparable to that caused by imprisonment, but the principle must be starkly seen.

And what do we get for this basic violation of natural rights? Will California’s bill prevent campus rape? Under the bill, any dispute will still come down to she-said, he-said. Whereas a real rapist would in the past have tried to lie his way out by claiming “she consented to sex”, he will now lie his way out by saying, “she affirmatively consented to sex”.

So in the best case, California’s rule does nothing; in the worst, it punishes decent, sexually active adults and compromises natural rights.

Either way, it is dangerous. The passing of such a law gives lazy politicians and institutional officers the sense that a very real and serious problem has been taken care of when it has not at all. By defining consent so narrowly, non-consent is defined so broadly that its true instances cannot be identified. The genuine moral responsibility of educational institutions to identify actual sexual predators – and to engage in the self-examination necessary to identity the cultural causes of the presumed heightened prevalence of rape at the institution – is entirely abdicated.

Of secondary import is the negative contribution of such a bill to an even broader, if less dangerous, problem: men’s generational inability to understand women, with all those mysterious-to-men female modes of communication, all the ways they communicate their desires, all the ways they like to be made to feel like women, and the way in which everything on that list is mediated by context.

To summarize in British vernacular, “don’t bother with any of that, mate. Just get her to sign here”. That’s where we are going. A law that forces free people, harming no one, to do things they choose not to do can only be consistently enforced with repeated refinements to specify, in ever-increasing detail, the mandated action whenever a case is brought. Such law-making turns the real meaning of rights on its head. Just as all human beings have the (negative) right to the integrity of their bodies, they have the same (negative) right not to be forced to do things they do not want to do when they are harming no one.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, obviously – so I am really seeking to contribute to a debate that I believe must be had. But for sure, college students are legally responsible adults at institutions that are designed to teach them how to think for themselves, and become responsible decision-makers. So as an initial suggestion, why not tackle this devastating moral and cultural problem by educating them about the issue, and requiring them to rise to both the challenge and the responsibility of negotiating, setting and implementing their own policies to deal with it in their community?

Cultures, after all, are the sum total of the attitudes and expectations of the people in them. Therefore, requiring individuals to consider the issue of sexual consent with the other members of their community may be the only way to get to the real roots of the problem – to treat its causes, and not just its terrible symptoms. Education before the crime – rather than punishment after the non-crime – would seek to help men and women understand and genuinely respect each other’s modes of communication and expectations in social contexts.

Without such an approach, we are surely just diminishing our moral sensitivity and giving up personal responsibility – in the name, ironically, of moral sensitivity and personal responsibility.

And meanwhile, the Californian government will be not only in your bedroom, but also in the conversation you have on the way there.

Police urge lawmakers not to end law allowing them to have sex with prostitutes

HONOLULU, March 23, 2014– Hawaii police are urging state legislators to maintain a law that allows undercover police to have sex with prostitutes during investigations.

According to the Associated Press, the move by police officials has sparked a fierce debate.

Police officials claim they need to be exempt from prostitution laws so that they may catch criminals in the act by having sex with prostitutes themselves.

Police will not say how often, or even if, they have used the provisions allowing them to have sex with prostitutes. They assured legislators that internal policies were in place to prevent officers from “abusing the power”.

Expert Derek Marsh says the exemption is “antiquated at best” and that police can easily do their jobs without it.

“It doesn’t help your case, and at worst you further traumatize someone. And do you think he or she is going to trust a cop again?” asked Marsh, who trains California police in best practices on human trafficking cases and twice has testified before Congress on the issue.

The Hawaii bill cracking down on prostitution was originally written end the sex exemption for officers on duty, but was amended to restore that protection after police provided testimony. The amended bill has passed the state House and went before a state Senate committee Friday.

Hawaii’s law allowing police to have sex with prostitutes is simply another illustration of how police officers are placed above the law.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

Prohibition and Prostitution


The principle of sex for money is horrifying to many. But why should something that is completely consensual, and done in private, be banned? However vile prostitutes’ activities may be, their actions are not directly affecting anyone who chooses not to be involved (except maybe the hotel maid the following morning). But as usual, Washington bureaucrats feel the need to get in people’s private business by banning consensual sex for money.

Why does it matter what people do in private if others are not affected?

Prohibition never works. For instance, alcohol consumption increased sharply during Prohibition in the 1920s. Other effects of this ban: alcohol became more dangerous to consume, crime increased, and prisons became very overcrowded. When something is banned, its use rarely decreases significantly, and a black market is always created.

Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it doesn’t work with prostitution.

The laws banning prostitution are well intended. Would you want your daughter being a sex worker? Your sister? Of course not. But the unintended consequences of these laws are worse than the problems they attempt to solve. Prostitutes currently must operate in the shadows of society, which places them in jeopardy. Anonymity allows dangerous Johns to abuse the women (remember the Craigslist killer?), often with no consequences. Bringing both the prostitute and the John out of the dark reduces the likelihood of dangerous clients. Another benefit of transparency: prostitutes could advertise their services freely, eliminating the pimp from the equation. And just think how adorable those new billboards would be!

Prostitution legalization would also reduce the risk of STD transmission if the state mandated disease exams for sex workers. As it stands now, prostitutes with STDs, who may not even be aware that they are infected, can spread disease rapidly and repeatedly.

Most people are opposed to prostitution legalization because they think it is immoral. This is understandable, but just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal (with the possible exception of renewing Keeping up with the Kardashians for another season). Cruelty is immoral, but we can’t pass laws outlawing every cruel behavior. We simply cannot ban everything we don’t like.

But what is morally wrong with a consensual woman of age using her body to make money? Strip clubs are everywhere, and they allow women to make a living exploiting their own bodies. And porn stars make a good living having sex for money- and we’re okay with that because there is a camera in the room. The hypocrisy is laughable.

In Amsterdam, prostitution has been recognized as a legal profession since 1988. Despite prostitution legalization, the violent crime rate in Amsterdam is far lower than that of New York City. The Dutch believe that regulating the sex industry helps reduce human trafficking, forced prostitution, and exploitation of children. Dutch prostitutes pay taxes on their income, and get tested for STDs regularly. The city of Amsterdam has been so pleased with the system that in 2007, a bronze statue memorializing “working women” was erected (pun intended).

In the US, Nevada is the only state that allows regulated brothels. Moonlite BunnyRanch in Mound House, NV, is one of the legal brothels in the state. So far, it has been a tremendous success. The women who work there may set their own wages transparently, and are regularly checked for STDs. HBO has even turned the BunnyRanch into a popular reality television show. Most of the female workers say they love their job, and wouldn’t want to do anything else. On a side note, I wonder if they’re given a mandatory retirement age. If not, the situation could get really ugly at the BunnyRanch.

Does anyone truly believe that outlawing the oldest profession in the world makes it less prevalent?

Prostitution legalization would not ruin our culture. It would only make the sex industry, and society as a whole, safer and more transparent.

Obamacare Forces Its Way Into Your Private Sex Life

“Pro-choicers” often hold signs at rallies that say things like, “Stay Out Of My Uterus.” Now conservatives might be sporting similar signs to protest Obamacare.

Under Obamacare, all doctors – from dermatologists, to podiatrists, to neurologists – will be asking very personal questions about your sex life. Questions like, “Are you sexually active?”, “With whom?” and “How many sexual partners do you have?”

Doctors will be financially punished if they fail to ask such questions.

Here is how it will work: under Obamacare, all doctors who do not use electronic methods by 2015 will face heavy fines from Medicare and Medicaid.

In those records, the government has mandated that doctors include details pertaining to patients’ sex life.

Some doctors say the regulations could harm the patient-doctor relationship. Dr. Richard Amerling, a nephrologist and professor at Albert Einstein Medical College, said the requirements make your medical record “into an interrogation, and the data will not be confidential.”

The New York Civil Liberties Union is concerned about privacy (or lack thereof). In a 2012 report, the group pointed out that almost all information on a patient’s medical record can be found with one click of a mouse.

As Betsy McCaughey of the New York Post argued that should be assertive and defend their personal privacy. She wrote, “WikiLeaker Bradley Manning showed how incompetent the government is at keeping its own secrets; incidents where various agencies accidentally disclose personal data like Social Security numbers are legion. And that’s not to mention the ways in which commercial databases are prone to hacking and/or exploitation.”

In the 1980s and 1990s, women’s rights activists vehemently protested the federal government’s ability to access a woman’s health records.

Ironically, women’s rights groups have not made a peep about the intrusive Obamacare mandates.

Obamacare is arguably an intrusive vehicle for the federal government to push its way into our private business and bodies.

Are you concerned? Let us know your thoughts below.