“They Took the Money, Didn’t They?”
People who are harmed sexually will often face scepticism about the severity of the abuse if any sort of transaction occurred.
If they got paid, were gifted a trip or a handbag, or even if they had an orgasm, these can be interpreted as evidence that the incident was “mutually beneficial”, and therefore “consensual”.
But that isn’t always the case.
Gifts as a Lure
From a young age, children are taught not to accept gifts from strangers because these can be used to lure them into unsafe situations.
They are told things like: don’t take candy from a stranger, don’t go to their van to see their “puppies”, don’t accept a ride, etc.
The lure, itself, doesn’t even need to be real- the puppies don’t exist, the ride to school was never a genuine offer- the victim just has to believe it is valid before the trap snaps shut.
Adults are typically less naive than children, so they might not get lured by candy or puppies, but the same tactic gets used, just more elaborately.
Hollywood actresses were lured by Harvey Weinstein to his hotel room to discuss “career opportunities”. When they got there, they were met with abuse.
Same tactic, different lure.
Similarly, Jeffrey Epstein falsely told women that he was a “Victoria’s Secret scout” to grow close to them.
A really uncomfortable fact with the Epstein case, though, is that many of his victims were children.
He was luring them with promises of gifts and attention, just like other pedophiles, but money, opportunities, and trips, were his version of puppies in a van.
All of those gifts served the same function: to lure vulnerable children into unsafe situations.
And just like with the fake puppies, Epstein didn’t even need the opportunities to be real (like the Victoria’s Secret one). He just needed his victims to believe they were.
In fact, Epstein would often offer to make girls’ dreams come true- whether they wanted to be a model, actress, artist, or in Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s case- a masseuse or veterinarian.
He boasted that his vast resources and network could help them get where they were going. Unfortunately, though, if they didn’t do what he wanted, these same resources could be used to destroy them and any prospect of success in their field… making the victims even more isolated, poor, and desperate than before.
Epstein’s victims were viciously criticized for accepting his gifts. Critics suggested that this demonstrated they were not only willing- but eager- participants.
But these gifts weren’t given out of benevolence and generosity, they were used to trick and trap the victims for Epstein’s own gain.
He used this fake generosity and attention to gain the victims’ trust and make them feel special, then did what he wanted with them.
But he isn’t the only predator to do this- and won’t be the last.
Giuffre was all too familiar with the way that men like him operate. This is just how the world works, she thought.
A Wicked Hero
When Virginia was a child, her dad gave her a horse and used it as a manipulation tool to molest her. If she didn’t put up with his abuse, he threatened to take it away.
After she ran away from home, she was trafficked by a man who said he ran a “modelling agency”, which was actually an escort service.
When he picked her up in his limo, she was bruised, bleeding, broke, hungry, and homeless. He bought her something to eat and offered her a place to stay… in his bed.
He was 63, she was 15.
He also took her shopping for new clothes: thongs, short-shorts, and so on, which he expected her to wear.
Were those gifts given out of kindness?
Later, Epstein, too, gave her a “job”, shelter, and clothes- he paid her rent because he didn’t want her parents getting suspicious that she was coming and going at odd hours.
Again, is that generosity?
In each of these cases the men were manufacturing closeness under the illusion of “gifts”.
Orgasms, Specifically
Another form of false generosity can come through sex.
When Virginia tried to reject her father’s sexual advances, he would protest that this was his way of showing her “extra love”. He framed it as a generosity that he wasn’t even showing toward her mother.
But Virginia felt disgusted by it.
She would, however, get confused when her body reacted pleasurably to his touch. It made her hate herself and feel unsure over whether she wanted it to happen or not, even though she dreaded those encounters.
But just because a person experiences an orgasm during an assault, that does not mean it was consensual or wanted.
During a podcast episode, the therapist Dr. John Delony describes a child who wasn’t upset about being molested by an adult because “it felt good”. Dr. Delony said he felt like throwing up.
Not every orgasm is a good thing.
Bodies can react to stimulation even during an assault. Stimulation and desire are two different things.
Similarly, if a doctor hits a patient’s knee with a mallet, their lower leg will kick forward, even if the patient tries to resist it.
Epstein, on the other hand, liked his girls to pretend they enjoyed sex with him, even if they didn’t. So Giuffre often lied to keep him happy.
This is performative and problematic- she was a tool for Epstein’s pleasure, not her own- but was also self-protective in a way.
It helped her to know that she didn’t like what was happening.
Epstein didn’t care about her pleasure, whereas her father wanted her to experience pleasure from him.
Perhaps it made it easier for him to pretend that what he was doing was an act of generosity, not violence (in the same way Epstein used material things to do so). Even though that logic is completely flawed and self-affirming.
Throughout Giuffre’s story, acts of exploitation were frequently framed as acts of generosity. Predators manufactured the “yes”, then pointed to that coerced response as proof that the victim wanted what happened.
They socially engineered the outcome that they desired.
The Illusion of Choice
Virginia’s father couldn’t have gotten away with his abuse if Virginia would have had a safe place to go. But she was trapped in his care.
Epstein, Maxwell, and the opportunistic “modelling agent” specifically targeted people who were vulnerable, who didn’t have many other options.
These abusers offered them what looked like a way out of bad situations.
For Giuffre, it was almost as if accepting work from Epstein was the lesser of two evils- she had been consistently sexually assaulted by several men in her life starting from age 7. Epstein at least promised to help her thrive.
Giuffre, herself, was even taught to do the same- to spot the girls who were the neediest.
When she was recruiting a new girl, Giuffre told her exactly what to expect: a massage, sex, payment. The girl admitted that she could use the money, and agreed.
To desperate people the prospect of abuse may have felt like an opportunity.
And once in Epstein’s orbit, the victims still had very little power.
For example, one of the shopping sprees that Maxwell took Virginia on was before she was (allegedly) trafficked to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew). The scene sounds eerily similar to the trafficker who bought Giuffre new clothes before demanding sex from her… just now the clothes were from Burberry and the abuser was royalty.
Virginia potentially could have refused, but even then she was unsure of what awaited her when she met the prince. Plus she was in a foreign country and Maxwell and Epstein had her passport.
Similarly, victims were enticed to Epstein’s Island on Little St. James for travel or opportunity, once there, they couldn’t leave.
They had to play by Epstein’s rules, or face harsh consequences.
These men were showing (fake) kindness to girls who had already been failed by society, and who didn’t know what true kindness looked like.
Epstein used the fact that other people had let these girls down to his advantage and packaged it as his own virtue. He was opportunistic, but he was not the only villain.
If these girls had been given the proper care and attention from the start, then they wouldn’t have needed to rely on a predator for advancement.
That is society’s failure, not Epstein’s decency.
Lying to Himself
Epstein wanted to see himself in a good light.
Virginia writes: “He clung to the idea that, at his core, he was a generous benefactor.”
Just like her father had done with the horse or the orgasms. It seems like some sort of self-delusion that they wanted to convince others of.
Without the gifts, they would have had a harder time fooling anyone, including themselves. The gifts held up the shaky illusion that these men were anything other than what they were- child molesters.
“Epstein once told me that every girl he’d had sex with had benefited in one of three ways: either he gave them money to better their lives or he helped jump-start their career or he married them off to one of his successful friends.”
– Virginia Roberts Giuffre
In his own mind, Epstein was a great benefactor, but does this grand self-assessment stand up in real life?
How many of those girls went on to thrive in their chosen fields and how many were left broken, struggling to piece their lives together for decades?
Those that did find success, mostly found it through their own merit and healthy relationships.
Few of Epstein’s victims credit Epstein for any of their success. But he did.
Giuffre tragically died by suicide at 41 years old.
She never became a masseuse- the thought of touching strangers bodies had perhaps become much less appealing given everything she had been through, and everything that it had cost her to pursue this dream.
She however found new paths, such as advocacy and motherhood; two things she was very proud of- but that were cut short due to Epstein and the others.
Even after she had escaped these men, they were still dragging her down.
They had ended all her dreams, not delivered them to her.
Conclusion
Transactions can be used first to lure, then to justify. They transfer the labels of greed and self-interest from the perpetrator onto victims.
Even after Giuffre escaped Epstein, she still felt indebted to him, even though he had taken advantage of her consistently and devastated her life and psyche.
She never got too much from these men, she gave too much to them, in exchange for those gifts. (Although, can you really “give” something under duress? No.)
And they were still never satisfied.
When people ask: “they took the money, didn’t they?” they never ask what it cost.
Messy Bun Book Lover
Leave a Reply