Should we believe a woman?
Why, yes. In fact, we must believe all women! How else could we have gotten the Me Too Movement? Without “believe all women,” how could the plodding pace of British jurisprudence have trampled Johnny Depp? But let’s be more accurate. The phrase should read:
Believe all women when they say they are victims;
Believe no woman if she says she IS NOT A VICTIM
The local-hero prosecutor heading the case against Andrew Tate (and his brother and their PAs) has not yet divulged the contents of his evidence file, even to Andrew Tate’s attorneys. Perish the thought that defense attorneys would get to defend their clients!
However, in order to imprison* the defendants, the prosecutor told the judge that he had identified six victims of human trafficking. Of course, two of those have made YouTube videos stating that they are NOT victims, but now the prosecutor has secured an additional thirty days to buy, er, locate more “victims” or maybe to hope the Tates’ personal assistants, locked away with their own lice, bedbugs, and roaches in a different filthy cell, will turn on their bosses.
The Lover Boy Law in Romania has been used to convict Mafioso who seduced women with the promise of marriage and then forced them into prostitution. Now, somehow, it is supposed to apply to Andrew Tate, although there is no indication that he has forced women into prostitution or forced them into anything else.
It’s not hard to imagine women falling in love with Andrew Tate, a man with a perfect physique, a brilliant mind, and a captivating personality. Not to mention that anyone with Internet access knows that he has a healthy bank balance, international fame, and sex appeal to spare. How about it, ladies? Could you fall in love with this man?
So why should Andrew Tate be considered a criminal just because women fall in love with him? Well, you see, women are never to be held responsible for their own behavior, and they are helpless to resist a man of Andrew Tate’s charisma.
Romania’s Lover Boy Law and similar psychological legal concepts (coercive power, coercive control, gas lighting) evolved from a desire to protect the vulnerable from harm. Most of us agree that laws are needed to protect children, the disabled, the mentally defective, the mentally incapacitated, the comatose. But when you throw women into a group labelled “vulnerable,” you are saying that women are less human than men, who are never automatically designated as vulnerable.
Basic human right in Western culture. A basic right is the recognition of the individual’s agency, the dignity that lies in controlling one’s own actions and accepting responsibility for their consequences. Categorizing females as “vulnerable” is insulting, but it is more than that: It is saying that women are not quite human beings. Ironically, this belief that women cannot or should not take responsibility for their own lives is what underlies both Andrew Tate’s misogyny and the Islamic faith he has now embraced.
But let’s get back to the problem of labelling women as “vulnerable.”
“Well,” the cry on YouTube goes up, “Uh, no, we don’t mean to say that ALL women belong in the group of vulnerable women, just the ones who worked for the Tates in Web cam studios.”
Hmm, not all Web cam models? “What makes this subset vulnerable?” This old woman wants to know.
“Well,” the YouTubers reply, “They are poor. They don’t have much education. They don’t have opportunities in life.”
Okay, let’s put aside for the moment that these YouTubers do not know a single one of the women who have worked for the Tates and, therefore, don’t actually know that these women are poor, undereducated, and/or bereft of opportunity.
In the seventy-five years I have walked this planet, I’ve actually known a number of poor, undereducated, opportunity-deprived women who could still think for themselves as well as accept responsibility for their own actions and decisions. And frankly, some them would have found working for Andrew Tate as a Web cam model a step up from where they actually landed in life: working demeaning low-paying jobs they hated, pregnant and abandoned, in sick marriages to men who confiscated their paltry wages to purchase alcohol or drugs, in arranged marriages to men they hated.
If the women Andrew Tate and his brother hired were in such desperate straits, might they not have ended up as prostitutes or victims of actual human traffickers, literally being sold? Is it really so unlikely that a job as a Web cam model might be appealing? A job with a safe, pleasant place to work; an interesting man providing the basic necessities, a few luxuries, and security from other men you don’t want pawing you; one who gives you a percentage of the money your efforts bring to the business, so that the harder you work, the more you earn?
The number of young women exploiting their own bodies on OnlyFans and Instagram suggest that a job with the Tate brothers just may appeal to many young women, particularly if their other job opportunities are hustling drinks, giving head to derelicts in parked cars and alley-ways, lap dancing, stripping, forced marriage, abusive relationships, and prostitution.
In America, we know what human trafficking is. Daily for the last two years, our southern border has been breached by vicious criminals who have taken everything their victims owned as part of an agreement to conduct them to America, for centuries known as the Land of Opportunity–only to shackle, starve, beat, rape, and often kill those victims. Both border patrols and Texas law officers find the bodies regularly.
To me, it is difficult to believe that the Tates have engaged in anything akin to human trafficking, even if a Romanian prosecutor, eager to better his position among the “leadership” in that poverty-stricken, corruption-laden country, tells me he has found a couple dozen ex-employees of the Tates who suddenly say they feel victimized.
As one YouTuber, an ardent fan of convictions under “coercive control” legislation, informed me: “These people often do not realize they are victims until later, when they have had time to process what happened.” Really? Just like the Me-Too bitches who needed decades and the incentive of big money in civil lawsuits to understand that they were victims, no?
The few barely breathing victims of real human traffickers that have been rescued along the Rio Grande–all poor, undereducated, and deprived of opportunity–knew the minute they were shackled that they were victims.
Another problem. Is this old woman the only one who finds it incredulous that Andrew Tate could traffic a female or would even want to do so? How could you traffic someone when you are an international celebrity? It boggles the mind.
And why would either Tate brother need to traffic women? I would think hundreds and maybe thousands of young women would be begging to work in their Web cam studios. Meet Top G and get paid? Dream job.
A surprising number of young women now show more of their bodies than they cover up, so what does it matter to them to remove the last scraps of fabric? Watch any group of sorority pledges walking to an event on an August evening in an American college town. They look like those bar sluts on a Fresh ‘n’ Fit podcast.
Even ten years ago, college girls walked into my classrooms dressed for the beach. I recall a young Russian girl who made her class presentation in shorts and a drooping halter top. The males were piling everything available onto their laps–baseball caps, backpacks, laptops–to conceal their boners.
I just don’t find it shocking that young females do Web cam work. And I certainly don’t see anything remarkable in their being infatuated with Andrew Tate. But I do find labelling them “victims” disgusting. This prosecutor had better have some shocking, irrefutable proof of human trafficking. But if he does, why is he waiting? If his proof is so devastating, why has it taken two raids and a year to pull it together?
_________________________________________________________________
*The Romanians and the MSM would prefer that English speakers use the word “detain” in place of “imprison.” However, as a native speaker of the language and holder of two university degrees in English Language and Literature, I defer to my own expertise and call incarceration in a vermin-infested cell “imprisonment.”
Cyclonejane
January 20, 2023
Conundrum Andrew Tate 