(FRAMING) BRITNEY SPEARS & Tavi Gevinson: Self-Sexualized Sex-Positive Teen Feminists or Sexualized Teens?

In Tavi Gevinson's New York magazine/”The Cut” piece, “Britney Spears Was Never in Control” (FEB. 23, 2021), Gevinson wrote that The New York Times’ Framing Britney Spears documentary did the following:

It made a compelling argument that Spears’ image was an expression of her teen sexuality

It deemed it misogynistic to question Spears’ expression of her teen sexuality

It deemed it anti-feminist\sex-negative to feel that sexualizing a teenager is dubious

It related that Spears’ expression of her teen sexuality is an expression of female power

And the documentary rewrote Spears as a teen feminist icon

In addition, Gevinson wrote the documentary “casts a spell” “specifically of the stretch that chronicles Spears’ rise as a teen idol, starting with the “Baby One More Time” video, but Gevinson shared that she was “unsettled, as an adult, to watch a 16-year-old embody a schoolgirl fantasy.”

“Baby One More Time”

However, once again, in terms of Britney’s teen sexuality, Gevinson wrote that the documentary purported that Britney “made her own decisions” and “was never just some puppet”.

The filmmakers achieve this by alternating between footage of Spears and her collaborators asserting that she made her own decisions [...] If “Baby One More Time” made me feel queasy, I was soon reminded that America is sexist and sexually repressed. If I wondered what kind of say Spears had in the “sexy” Rolling Stone photos taken in her childhood bedroom, I was soon reassured that she was never just some puppet.

The result is a documentary eager to characterize Spears’s early image as an expression of female power [...]

Yet, Gevinson disagreed with the positive assessment the documentary made of Britney Spears' teen sexuality. Gevinson implied that Britney didn’t make her own decision and that Britney was a puppet:

[...] the doc was rewriting Spears as a feminist icon. “[However] [s]he was the Establishment! She was what we were supposed to be: sexy and young. Not a paragon of independence.”

But Spears shared in the documentary that being sexy is naturally a part of being a nymphet. Britney said, “Well, I think we’re all girls, and I mean, that’s a part of who we are. You’d be lying if you said you didn’t like to feel sexy. You know what I mean? You’re a girl.” Wait, was Gevinson implying that the "Establishment" force this stance upon Spears?

Ed McMahon & Britney Spears

And in a 2003 interview with British GQ, Spears answered that the Rolling Stone photographer did a very good job of portraying her - despite asking her to “Undo your sweater a little bit more.”

“How did I realise [I was a sex symbol]? Probably the first Rolling Stone cover by David LaChapelle [...] I was back in my bedroom, and I had my little sweater on and he was like, ‘Undo your sweater a little bit more.’ The whole thing was about me being into dolls, and in my naïve mind I was like, ‘Here are my dolls!’ and now I look back and I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, what the hell?’ But he did a very good job of portraying me in that way. It certainly wasn’t peaches and cream.” [Emphasis added]

By sharing Spears' 2003 British GQ interview, Gevinson made the point that we’ve been consistently making in our posts, which is that it’s two-way street - both the "Establishment" and Spears are guilty of using her teen sexuality (i.e., the allure of a nymphet) to make (a lot) of money. (e.g., LaChapelle/Rolling Stone: “Undo your sweater a little bit more.” Spears: “But he did a very good job of portraying me in that way.”)

Even Gevinson appeared to agree with our “two-way street” assessment: "There is no need to believe it’s either Everything was Britney’s choice, and therefore she was always a sex-positive feminist or Nothing was Britney’s choice, and the evil adults made all her decisions."

The “90’s Lolitas Volume 3: Wild Things, Cruel Intentions and Britney Spears” episode of the You Must Remember This podcast (October 9, 2023) shed more light on the “Baby One More Time” video and the LaChapelle/Rolling Stone photoshoot. For example, per the podcast, the catholic school girl uniform with the blouse tied above her midriff was 16-year-old Britney’s idea. Karina Longworth narrated:

Nigel Dick had been directing music videos since the beginning of MTV, and was responsible for image-defining videos for artists as diverse as Guns n’ Roses, Oasis, The Backstreet Boys and Celine Dion. [In] Dick’s idea for the “Baby One More Time” video […] Britney would have gone to space with animated characters that looked like Power Rangers. The story goes that she saw the treatment and thought it was lame, and offered her own idea: she would play a bored student who daydreams about breaking free from class and dancing in the high school’s halls.

“Your initial reaction to this is, I'm being told by a 16-year-old-girl what I should do…,” Dick said later. Then he rationalized, “This girl is 16 and I'm a grown man; perhaps she has a better perspective on her audience than I do. So I swallowed my pride.”

When Dick suggested she would be wearing a t-shirt and jeans in class, Britney suggested a catholic school girl uniform. When she showed up on set, she thought the blouse she was supposed to wear looked, in her word, “dorky,” so she tied it above her midriff.

16-Year-Old Britney Spears
(LaChappele/Rolling Stone)

Longworth narrated that Dick recalled that Britney wasn’t “pushed” into anything raunchy; however, she needed to be restrained. And Larry Rudolph, Britney’s manager at the time, related that being “squeaky clean” wasn’t natural for Britney, because she wanted “sexier”.

As Dick recalled, “She genuinely wanted to go down that road. It wasn’t like we pushed Britney into doing anything. Most of the time you have to hold her back a bit.’”

This was the standard line from the middle-aged men who worked with Britney: they wanted her to project wholesome virginity, but she kept wanting to look sexier. As her manager Larry Rudolph put it, “The record company wanted to keep things squeaky clean, and she went along with it at first. But it quickly became clear that it wasn’t natural for her.”

However, per Longworth, Rolling Stone alleged that Rudolph was: “marketing her as the teenage Lolita of middle-aged men’s dreams.” However, Rolling Stone’s April 1999 cover story of 16-year-old Britney was a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. Longworth opined that:

[...] nothing in the article was as provocative, or memorable, as the photos, shot by David LaChappelle in and around the Spears family home in Kentwood, Louisiana. The cover image, in which Spears wears a white blouse unbuttoned to show a black bra and white silk boyshort panties while clutching a phone in one hand and a teletubbie in one hand [...]

In the most obviously staged image, Britney straddles a pink bicycle, looking back at the camera, which is focused on her white short-shorts, on which the word “baby” is spelled out on one butt cheek.

There are also pictures of Britney in a cardigan open over a white bra and short-shorts, standing in her childhood bedroom surrounded by stuffed animals and dolls, and another of her dressed in a blue satin micromini and bandeau top, dancing in her family’s TV room as though she’s at a club [...]

Longworth went on the narrate that Britney’s LaChappele/Rolling Stone photos were shot to “titillate”, initiate a “Lolita fantasy”, and instigate an “[...] adult sexuality into the spaces of childhood.”

[...] Britney was styled in these photos, which were shot just before her 17th birthday, to titillate, and particularly to activate that specific 90s Lolita fantasy of the child who will seduce you into forgetting that having sex with her is legally and ethically out of bounds [...] The LaChappele Britney photos seem intent on reminding the viewer that you’re looking at a child, while pushing adult sexuality into the spaces of childhood.

16-Year-Old Britney Spears (LaChapelle/Rolling Stone)

However, Longworth went on to say that there are conflicting stories about the photoshoot. LaChappele related that Britney wanted to take advantage of the “Lolita thing” to “[...] get people talking and excited.” And that after Rudolph left the room, the 16-year-old mischievously “unbuttoned her shirt wide open”.

A dozen years after his photos of Britney ran alongside her first Rolling Stone profile, David LaChappele gave an interview in which he described the photoshoot as a collaboration between he and his then-16 year-old subject.

Quote: “I said to her, ‘You don’t want to be buttoned up, like Debbie Gibson…Let’s push it further and do this whole Lolita thing.’ She got it. She knew it would get people talking and excited.”

The photographer went on to describe something that happened when he was shooting Britney in her childhood bedroom at 2 a.m, ostensibly trying to get the shot of her with her exposed bra in front of all of her toys. When her manager Larry Rudolph suddenly walked in and asked what was going on, according to LaChappele, Britney acted shy and said, “Yeah, I don’t feel comfortable.” At first I felt betrayed,” he recalled. “But as soon as Larry walked out, Britney said, ‘Lock the door’ and unbuttoned her shirt wide open.”

However, per Longworth, Britney said that LaChappele “tricked” her, because she was a “naïve” 16-year-old.

This was very different from how Britney told this story. Four years after the shoot, she said of LaChappele, “He came in and did the photos and totally tricked me. They were really cool but I didn’t really know what the hell I was doing. And, to be totally honest with you, at the time I was 16, so I really didn’t. I was back in my bedroom, and I had my little sweater on and he was like, ‘Undo your sweater a little bit more.’ The whole thing was about me being into dolls, and in my naïve mind I was like, ‘Here are my dolls!’ and now I look back and I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, what the hell?’”

But Longworth reminded us that, per Lynne Spears, Britney’s mother, despite purporting in interviews to being a virgin, Britney lost her virginity when she was 14 - to her 18-year-old boyfriend.

The Daily Mail reported in the piece, “‘Britney started drinking at 13, lost her virginity at 14 and took drugs at 15 [...]” (4 September 2008):

Britney Spears' mother [Lynne Spears] is set to lift the lid on the troubled singer's life - with revelations [via the book Through The Storm: A Real Tale Of Fame And Family In A Tabloid World] that she was drinking at 13 and lost her virginity the following year.

Lynne Spears claims Britney was drinking not long after joining Disney's Mickey Mouse Club, a U.S. variety television show.

Mrs. Spears also says her daughter lost her virginity aged 14 to an 18-year-old high school football player soon after she quit the programme.

[...] allegedly [Britney was] caught boarding a private plane (aged 16), [when] cocaine and marijuana was found in her bag.

And per the Daily Mail, Lynne: “[...] encouraged the [teen sex] relationship because she thought it would make her more popular.” And Lynne: “[...] allowed her [i.e., 15-year-old Britney] to share her bedroom with new boyfriend, Justin Timberlake. Mrs. Spears was said to be sure the teenagers were having sex.”

Lynne’s assumption was correct, because per the Cosmopolitan piece “Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake relationship timeline” (25 October 2023), Britney revealed her in book The Woman In Me: “Justin and I had been living together, and I'd been having sex since I was 14.”

Of course, just because 16-year-old Britney had been having sex, for years, in the very same bedroom where the LaChappele/Rolling Stone cover photo was taken, doesn’t prove that LaChappele’s version of the story is correct. But does it prove that Britney was not naïve?

18-Year-Old Tavi Gevinson

Lastly, and going back to Gevinson’s “The Cut” piece, the parts of the post that relate directly to Gevinson are often contradictory. For example, Gevinson wrote that she allowed her 18-year-old self to be photographed “lying across the bed” in her “childhood bedroom” in a “romper”, because she desperately wanted to “update” her “public image as a sexually active being”.

Like Britney Spears, I was professionally photographed, lying across the bed in my childhood bedroom, when I was a teenager. I had been 18 for a month [...] I remember that the romper had symbolized, for me, my new life starting, and it’s very likely I was eager to update my public image as a sexually active being after extensively documenting an adolescence where I favored bulky layers and granny glasses. 

But in the very next paragraph, Gevinson wrote: “Still, when I see the photo now, I just see another thin white able-bodied blonde girl being sexualized.”

Wait, is Gevinson saying that she self-sexualized, she was sexualized or both. #twowaystreet

KEEP THIS BETWEEN US (2022): High School Student-Teacher Sexual Affair(s)

The fascinating thing about age-gap memoirs and documentaries is that they’re typically filled with (revealing) contractions. Keep This Between Us (2022), a Freeform/Hulu documentary, is no different. And IMDb’s synopsis is leading. “Follow's one woman's journey [i.e., Cheryl Nichols] as she reexamines her past relationship with a trusted teacher [i.e., Jason Meyers].” [Emphasis added]

Very interestingly, in the first episode of the four part series, Cheryl admitted that she was at fault, but not “totally”, for having an age-gap affair with her married high school teacher.

“I have something to get over that wasn’t totally my fault. Remembering that I was just this person for years that was just constantly focusing all of their energy on this, you know, one person and trying to give all their love and all of their support to this one person. I don’t really know what the difference is between having that with a guy who was your teacher in high school and who is much older than you, and having that with, you know, boyfriends your own age, because I didn’t really have that.” 

But minutes later, in the, seemingly, first contradiction, Cheryl said that she did not have a share in the responsibility for the illicit affair, because, when the affair began, she was a 16-year-old “child”.

“For so many years, I did not even have the language to speak about this. I didn’t have the words. I started to recognize that I wasn’t responsible for this, that I was a child. I didn’t think that being a 16-year-old person was a child [...]”

However, Cheryl admitted that at 16, she was old enough to be obsessed and in love - with her married teacher. So much so that the affair continued after she went to college at University of Utah. 

“Like, I fell in love with my teacher when I was 16. And then I went to college and I was still with this guy.”

However, Cheryl didn’t live on campus. Shockingly, she lived off campus with her teacher and his wife! We learned in episode 3 that she told her parents, “I don’t need to live in the dorms, I can live, you know, in the basement of the theater teacher [i.e., her teacher’s wife].” 

Why did Cheryl move in with her (former) high school teacher? Cheryl said, “[...] I felt like I owed it to him to at least show up and give the relationship a try and that kind of meant without conditions.” Consequently, Cheryl lost her virginity to her married roommate - in the basement. And subsequently, she wrote in her journal: “[...] I know in my heart that he loves me.” 

Cheryl posited that she was trapped and groomed into the student-teacher affair and elaborated on how her teacher did it, which was that he “implanted” things in her head:

• Cheryl’s teacher implanted in her head that she was intelligent
• Cheryl’s teacher implanted in her head that she possessed a “special thing”
• Cheryl’s teacher constantly reminded her of that “special thing” (e.g., You're so full of energy. You’re so alive.)
• Cheryl’s teacher “turned his light on” her (e.g., through poetry) and consequently validated her

“I never had anybody care that I was intelligent before. He was really great at finding the special thing about a person and constantly reminding them that that made them special. When he turned his light on me, I felt like I was suddenly, not just seen, but I was validated by this person who everybody believed was great. I just didn’t know that it was gonna be a trap.”

Rhetorical questions: 

Could any teacher use these techniques to initiate an illicit affair with a schoolgirl? In other words, by using these implanting techniques, could even your most charmless and (subjectively) unattractive teacher miraculously become charming and attractive by, say, telling a schoolgirl that she’s intelligent.  

Or does the teacher have to be attractive? In other words, does implanting only work if the schoolgirl is already attracted to the teacher? Wait, but feminists and teen boys would argue that it’s utterly impossible for a schoolgirl to be organically attracted to any teacher. 

In addition, we learned in episode 1 that, feeling validated and excited, Cheryl would visit her teacher’s classroom after school - a lot. And there would be flirting.

“I would get excited about going into his class after school.” 

“I spent a lot of time in his classroom going to poetry and we started getting really close. Like there would be these flirtatious moments [...]”

Interestingly, out of all the implanting techniques Cheryl’s teacher used, it was his use of poetry that made Cheryl “push everything to the side” and make her affair with her teacher her “priority”.

“It was over for me after that poem [“Frustration”], like, I was done. It doesn’t matter what this costs me, I will be part of this relationship.” 

But later Cheryl said that the affair was not consensual: “It was not a consensual relationship - it was like I was being completely taken advantage of.” #confused

Anyway, after being touched by the poem, 16-year-old Cheryl went to her teacher’s house with some friends. While watching a movie, Cheryl’s friends left, one-by-one, but she stayed, and after her teacher’s wife left the room, Cheryl and her teacher kissed - for the first time. 

It turns out that Cheryl's burgeoning affair with her teacher was no secret. For example, Josh Pierson, Cheryl’s male friend from school, shared that he knew that Cheryl and their teacher were “hanging out and in a relationship”. Katie Hall, another former classmate, shared that she knew at the time that the relationship was “inappropriate in the sense that they were too close - that it made everybody uncomfortable.”

Interestingly, towards the beginning of episode 2, Cheryl admitted that she knew that (some of) her classmates were aware of her student-teacher affair, but, interestingly, she placed (some of) the blame on them for the illicit affair. And she wanted them to take accountability? “A lot of people who looked the other way then still refuse to take accountability for their actions now.” Wait, what? 

But Kat Salerno said that after she confronted Cherly about the affair, “She denied it. Straight away, denied it.” Cheryl retorted, “People are blowing it out of proportion.” Even Though, Kat confronted Cheryl about the affair, Cheryl claimed in episode 3, “I didn’t have any friends who were able to say, ‘This is weird, Cheryl. This is weird. This is not normal.” 

Cheryl said that, “For years I had convinced myself that I was making this choice to be with him, that I was the one that needed to accept the consequences. But now, there’s no doubt in my mind that he was in control of this.” And remember when Cheryl said that, “It was not a consensual relationship - it was like I was being completely taken advantage of.” 

Well, Brandi Preas, another former classmate, shared that it appeared that Cheryl was not being taken advantage of, because it appeared that it was Cheryl who was influential over her teacher, that it was Cheryl, à la Kathryn Merteuil in Cruel Intentions 2, who was “calling the shots'' in the age-gap affair, and that Cheryl was “just so in love” with her teacher. And Daniel Penalloza said that some of their classmates opined that, “Cheryl was looking for attention.”

Brandi Preas, “I had issues with, you know, wanting to come forward because my anger towards you was awful. I hated you. I wanted nothing to do with you. I blamed you [...] I saw your attachment to each other. I could see how he was favoring you. We felt like you never got bad directions. You always got the part. Most people assumed you had the influence over him. And you were calling the shots in a lot of ways [...] I mean. If I were to act it out, I’d be like, ‘She’s just so in love with him. It’s gross.’ 

Kat Salerno, another former classmate, erroneously said that their classmates blamed Cheryl for the affair, “[...] because women get blamed for man’s actions all the time.” This is obviously not true - especially as it relates to student-teacher affairs as teachers are, almost always, (openly) blamed.

In yet another seeming contradiction, after Cheryl admitted that “But of course, all of the kids in school were talking about it [i.e., her student-teacher affair],” Cheryl shared an old journal entry where she wrote that the affair made her “happy” but that the “suspicious minds” on campus made her sad and weak, but they were trying to ruin the “fun” she was having with her teacher, that she was happy, and that the only way to be happy was through her age-gap affair. 

And it appears that Cheryl wasn’t the only student having an affair with a teacher, because Cheryl shared, “Like, people [i.e., her schoolmates] would joke about students having sex with their teachers like it was funny.”

Cheryl’s journal entry:

“It is hard to decipher my current feeling. I’m happy because of the events that have taken place - yet sad that some have too. Suspicious minds make me weak.They sit in their houses with picket fences and laugh at me. I just get so angry. Why do they always ruin our fun? I just want to be happy. I just want to keep the smile. The only way I can is through him.”

Surprisingly, Cheryl related that she considered her teacher her boyfriend and that she was convinced that he loved her because, for their love, he was willing to get fired.

“I just wanted to be with him. I wanted to feel, in those little concentrated periods of time, that I was with my boyfriend. Like, I saw him as my boyfriend. And in my mind, he was the one who had everything on the line. He was risking his entire life for me. It made me feel so special. It made me feel so important to know that if somebody found out about us, like, he could get fired. Why would he do that unless he loved me?”

Unsurprisingly, word of Cheryl’s affair with her teacher reached the principal and the counselor. After the principal asked Cheryl, “Are you involved in a sexual relationship with the teacher?” Cheryl replied, “No.” But then Cheryl blamed the school’s administration for sliding the affair “right under the rug”! However, it’s not surprising that Cheryl denied the affair, because she opined that the principal and the counselor were just two more “suspicious minds” 

Provocatively, Cheryl, not only avidly read “Nabokov and Henry Miller and Anais Nin” in high school, but she was “obsessed” with Lolita, and Cheryl used to compare herself to the famous nymphet. “Like Lolita. I was, like, obsessed with it [...] I guess I used to, like, compare myself to Lolita sometimes.”  

We knew that Cheryl’s affair with her teacher began when she was 16, but we learned in episode 3 that it lasted almost about six years! Thus, it’s no surprise that Cheryl admitted that the affair was consensual but she qualified it with a reminder that she was “implanted” (i.e., groomed) before she agreed to the affair. 

“We stayed together until I was 22. The grooming led to what some people would say, was like, a consensual relationship.”

Cheryl said that her desire to move to L.A. gave her the strength to leave the age-gap relationship, but that doesn’t appear to be true or, at least, the only reason. “I’m in Los Angeles now. My desire to get out of Little Elm, it’s the reason that I had the strength to pull myself out of that relationship.”

Just like Vanessa Springora in Le Consentement (Consent) and Maggie in Three Women, the “real turning point” in the affair began after Cheryl found out that there were other nymphets, because after her teacher’s wife found out about her husband’s affair with Cheryl, Cheryl learned that her older lover was fired from his high school teaching position due to, “[...] an inappropriate email relationship with a student”. 

And after Cheryl shared with Heaven Rubin, “I was in a relationship with him [i.e., Meyers] and it started when I was in high school. It started when I was 16.” Heaven replied, “Me too.” Cheryl cried, “Sorry.” 

In episode 4, we learned a bit more about Heaven’s teacher-student affair with Meyers of which Cheryl said, “I’m just tying myself into knots about this.” After Meyers kissed Heaven, in class, their student-teacher sex included, “[...] instances of fellatio, cunnilingus and sexual intercourse inside the classroom - behind the closed door [...]” 

And talk about a double plot twist! It was not until 17-year-old Heaven learned that she was not the only schoolgirl of Jason Meyers did she have a turning point in their affair. 

The question remains, Why did Cheryl make Keep This Between Us? Well, she confessed that she wanted Meyers to “admit it” or acknowledge their student-teacher affair, because she wanted to believe that “he’s good”. It really bothered Cheryl that Meyers wouldn’t acknowledge their age-gap relationship. Cheryl said, “When I started out doing this documentary, I had hoped that he would accept [some] responsibility for this or at least acknowledge what happened, but he didn’t.”

Connectedly, the documentary ended with lyrics from Daniel Farrant’s “Who’s Gonna Fix It”: Don’t you know that you gotta\Take some of the blame

Famous Age-Gap Couple: Jerry Falwell Jr. (18) & Becki (13)

Jerry Falwell Jr. (18) & Becki Tilley (13)

Per Heavy's post "Becki Tilley, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts":

According to a passage from the book Falwell Inc.: Inside a Religious, Political, Educational, and Business Empire by Dirk Smillie, Jerry Falwell Jr. “met his wife, the former Becki Tilley, an attractive brunette, when she was 13.”

And in Hulu's documentary God Forbid: The Sex Scandal That Brought Down a Dynasty (2022), Falwell Jr. confirmed that Becki was a nymphet when they met :

Panelist: "How old was Becki when you guys first met?"

Becki: "We don't need to go into that story."

Falwell Jr.: "She was 13, and I was 18 when I met her."

Allegedly, Becki and Falwell Jr. didn't start (openly) dating until Becki was an 18-year-old freshman at Liberty University, and Falwell was a second year law school student at the University of Virginia. (Unsurprisingly, the age-of-consent in Virginia is 18.)

Falwell Jr. & (Former) Student

If you recall, Falwell Jr. is the son of, the now deceased, Jerry Falwell Sr - the televangelist and founder of Liberty University. Scandalously, Falwell Jr. was the president of Liberty University until he was forced to resign in 2020 after a cuckolding sex scandal involving Falwell Jr., Becki, and Giancarlo Granda - a Fontainebleau Hotel pool boy. 

Interestingly, as it more closely relates to this blog, Granda shared in God Forbid, "Jerry [Falwell Jr.] texted me a picture of a former student exposing herself at his private property."

We've covered a number of age gap affairs between students and teachers, students and principals, and students and coaches, but we've never covered an age-gap affair between a student and a college president!

STREETWISE (1984): "Dates" for Sex | Seattle's Teen Prostitutes

Here's is part of the Criterion Channel's synopsis for Streetwise (1984):

Seattle, 1983. Taking their camera to the streets of what was supposedly America’s most livable city, filmmaker Martin Bell, photographer Mary Ellen Mark, and journalist Cheryl McCall set out to tell the stories of those society had left behind: homeless and runaway teenagers living on the city’s margins [...] “Streetwise” follows an unforgettable group of at-risk children—including iron-willed fourteen-year-old Tiny [Erin Blackwell] [...] who, driven from their broken homes, survive by hustling, panhandling, and dumpster diving. Granted remarkable access to their world, the filmmakers craft a devastatingly frank, nonjudgmental portrait of lost youth growing up far too soon in a world that has failed them.

It turns out that Tiny starting "hustling" when she was 13. The synopsis refers to Tiny's teen prostitution as "husting", and Tiny referred to her johns as "dates". Tiny said that her older dates are strange but she likes the money.

"I think it is very strange that older men like little girls [...] I mean, I like the money but I don't like them."

Tiny [Erin Blackwell]

How much did Tiny make as a teen prostitute, and how often did she work in downtown Seattle? Tiny made up to $400 - just about every day.

"I used to at least bring in $300, $400 and for a blowjob it would be 30 on up. And for a lay it would be like 40 on up."

"[...] I used to turn dates lots and lots of times just about every day I be pulling dates day and night."

And Tiny shared that the older prostitutes charged more "[...] than us little kids do." 

Tiny didn't know her "real" father. Consequently, she feared that she may have "dated" him: 

"My real dad I've never known [...] I could have dated him for all I know."

Kimberly Marsh

Tiny's (biological) mother reluctantly condoned Tiny's "hustling" and referred to it as a "phase". And so did Kimberly Marsh's (adopted) mother.  Consequently, Kimberly's mother was flabbergasted to learn that Kimberly wouldn't loan her any money.

"I know that you're a [teen] prostitute and everything and I know what you're doing and stuff. And I know that you got money [...] Fine! Thanks a lot! I'll remember this!"

Kimberly decided to become a sex worker after a friend informed Kimberly that (teen) prostitution was "great" because she was making a lot of "easy" money.

"Oh yeah, it's great man [...] I'm making so much money. And it's so easy. Money comes so easy and everything. It's great! You oughta do it!"

Consequently, Kimberly would call jonhs, repeatedly, from a payphone to see if they wanted a "date".

"Hi Dan. This is Kimberly again. Yeah. So, have you decided? Do you want a date tonight?"

In end, we have some (rhetorical) questions. Why were Bell, Mark and McCall "nonjudgmental". Why didn't they call the police on the underage prostitutes? (The age-of-consent in Seattle is 16.) And why were Tiny, Kimberly and the other teen prostitutes able to openly "hustle" in downtown Seattle? #theallureofnymphets

Lastly, the Streetwise documentary reminded us of the German teen prostitutes in We Children From Bahnhof Zoo - more so than the Roman teen prostitutes in the wealthy district of Parioli.

HYSTERICAL GIRL (2020) & Dora: A Teen, Young Girl, & German Man | Freud's Age-Gap Case Study

Kate Novack, 

the screenwriter, producer and director of Hysterical Girl (2020), summarized her short documentary for the New York Times as follows:

The short documentary above re-examines one of Sigmund Freud’s five major psychological case histories — the only one he produced of a female patient. “Hysterical Girl” uses a feminist lens to imagine Dora, the name Freud used at the turn of the 20th century to protect his subject’s identity, as a girl today. In the film, she tells her [fictional] version of events, alongside Freud’s own words. [Emphasis added]

Dora was 17 when her parents brought her to therapy after she accused a family friend of sexual assault [sic]. “Please,” Dora’s father asked Freud, “bring her to reason.” During the 11-week treatment, Freud chipped away at the case: Why would you continue to see the man you say assaulted you? Are you out for revenge? Did you secretly want it? A century later, the questions women face in similar circumstances haven’t changed much.

If you haven't read Freud's case study, it's important to emphasize that:

• Novack: "[....] uses a feminist lens to imagine Dora."
  
• Novack: "[...] tells her [fictional] version of events, alongside Freud’s own words."
• Dora did not report that she was sexually assaulted; however, the family friend made a "sexual proposition"

And by comparing Dora's family friend to the likes Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Jeffrey Epstein, Novack was being revealing when she wrote that: “Hysterical Girl” uses a feminist lens to imagine Dora [...]," because unlike Freud, one would be hard pressed to find a feminist whom would (openly) share that a nymphet could possibly be attracted to an older man.

Let's take a closer look at Freud's version of events. (Interestingly, nymphets typically have to be convinced that they were groomed and victimized, but Freud attempted to reassure Dora, whose real name was Ida Bauer, of just the opposite.)

Here's the event that prompted Ida's parent, whom married when her father was 27 and her mother was 18, to have her visit Freud:  

In summer of 1989, 16-year-old Ida and her family went to a lakeside resort to visit the Zellenkas family. Ida told her parents that during the visit, Herr Zellenka made a sexual proposition to her, which caused Ida to slap his face and run away. 

Subsequently, Ida's parents found a letter in her desk in which she stated that she couldn't bear living. Soon after, Ida fainted, she suffered a bout of amnesia, and her father took her to Freud, "Please try to bring her round to a better way of thinking."

Initially, Herr Zellenka denied the allegations, and Frau Zellenka reported that Ida: "[...] showed an interest in sexual matters and nothing else [...]". And that the nymphet had been reading Mantegazza's Physiology of Love and other books of the sort. 

It turns out that Herr Zellenka had previously kissed Ida - when she was 14. #plottwist It happened after Herr Zellenka invited Ida to his shop to watch a church procession, and while they were alone, he took the opportunity to hold her close and give her kiss on the lips. Ida fled the scene but kept in contact with Herr Zellenka.

Afterwards, Herr Zellenka sent Ida flowers and "expensive presents". As mentioned in the documentary, one of the presents was a jewel box that Freud interpreted as a box that Herr Zellenka wanted Ida to place her jewels in. 

Per Freud, Ida admitted that, after the kiss but prior to the lakeside scene, she could have been in love with Herr Zellenka. So why did Ida reject Herr Zellenka's sexual proposition at the lakeside resort?

It turns out that before Herr Zellenka propositioned Ida, she learned from the governess, a young girl, that Herr Zellenka and the governess had a sexual affair that Herr ended abruptly. The governess fled once she was certain that the affair would not resume. Thus, per Freud, Ida violently rebuffed Herr's advances due to "vengeful jealousy". Ida was aghast to learn that Herr even used the same lines with the governess, "There is nothing between me and my wife."

What Novack's documentary left out is that Ida admitted to Freud that after the sexual proposition, she desired to see Herr again, because she wanted him to prove that he was "serious" and didn't intend to: "[...] toy with her feelings as he did with the governess."

Interestingly, after his sessions with Ida, Freud came to, among others, the following conclusions:

• Ida practiced "childhood masturbation"
• Ida had a "[...] deeply rooted homosexual love for Frau K [i.e., Herr Zellenka]" whom Ida opined had an "enchantingly white body"
• Ida had a "defloration fantasy" that starred Herr Zellenka

And there were some interestings footnote in the slim volume e.g., a 14-year-old girl, who suffered from "alarming hysterical vomiting", shared with Freud that she had been "[...] masturbating for many years with a strong flux of flour albus* [*a whitish vaginal discharge] (which [per Freud] was clearly linked to her vomiting).

Lastly, we want to be perfectly clear and state that we don't condone Herr Zellenka's behavior, because men should avoid kissing, without consent, and men should avoid sexually propositioning any woman - of any age. 

Netflix's JEFFREY EPSTEIN: FILTHY RICH (Episode 1) | Reaction: Molested Survivors Versus Teen Prostitute Survivors

Episode 1 of Netflix's Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich opened with an important confession from Epstein:

Lawyer: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"

Epstein: "Yes."

Lawyer: "What was the crime of which you were convicted?"

Epstein: "[...] procuring a minor for prostitution"

Epstein's confession that he was convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution is important, because one can't be convicted of procuring a minor for prostitution if there aren't any minor (i.e., teen) prostitutes. 

A mistake this documentary series makes is labeling all of the nymphets involved with the Epstein case as survivors/victims when there should be (at least) two categories: molested/sexually assaulted survivors and teen prostitute survivors. 

Let's look at two examples from the molested/sexually assaulted survivors category:

At the New York Academy of Art graduation night art show (1995), Eileen Guggenheim, the former dean of students, literally twisted Maria Farmer's arm and demanded that she sell one of her "Alice in Wonderland" paintings to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Guggenheim's "dear friends", at a 50% discount. 

Two months later, Epstein gave Maria at job at his New York City mansion, and Maria introduced Epstein to Annie Farmer - Maria's 16-year-old sister. 

At Epstein's Zorro ranch in New Mexico, Annie alleged that Maxwell massaged Annie's nude breasts while Epstein looked on and that the following morning Epstein cuddled with Annie - without her consent. 

The following year, Epstein and Maxwell, asked Maria to do an artist-in-residency in a 26,000 square foot home behind Les Wexner's house in New Albany, Ohio. For an unexplained reason, Maria decided to do a series of paintings "[...] about puberty - girls partially nude [in] voyeuristic kind of private moments but not sexual." The painting were based on nude photographs that Maria took of her nymphet sisters. For example, Annie was 12-years-old in her nude photograph. 

After Maxwell informed Maria that Epstein would like to have his feet rubbed, Maria alleged that Epstein and Maxwell massaged her breasts - without her consent. 

Subsequently, Maria said that she informed the NYPD, who directed her to the FBI, that she was assaulted by Epstein and Maxwell, but nothing came of it until Maria was contacted by Vicky Ward who was writing a Vanity Fair profile on Epstein. Ultimately and inexplicably, Vanity Fair did not include the sisters' stories of being molested by Epstein and Maxwell in the profile. 

Now let's take a look at the teen prostitute survivors:

The special investigation unit of the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Epstein after a parent reported to the police that her 14-year-old step-daughter was found with $300 that she earned from giving Epstein a massage. 

This next point is important. 19-year-old Heather confessed to a detective that she was introduced to Epstein, "Through a friend. About two years ago." Thus, she was recruited by another teen, and she went back and forth to Epstein's house for two years.

Interestingly, when asked how she was introduced to Epstein, Michelle Licata shared with a detective that her friend informed her in class that she could make $200 for Christmas by massaging Epstein for 45 minutes. 16-year-old Licata replied, "Okay. That seems weird, but okay." Upon arriving at Epstein's mansion, Licata's friend urged Licata to lie about her age. 

Shawna Rivera first met Epstein after Rivera's friend, a repeat visitor to Epstein's residence, picked Rivera up at her modest West Palm Beach home where the 14-year-old nude nymphets gave Epstein a massage. Some time later, upon Epstein's request, Rivera took a cab back to Epstein's. Why? Rivera shared, "I assumed if I went back, I would get more money."

Prostitutes prostitute for a variety of reasons. For example, Rivera said that she went to Epstein's for over three years, because she was poor. Some of the more wealthy teen prostitutes in Italy and Japan do it for luxury goods. But the fact remains that they're (teen) (consensual) prostitutes. 

Dr. Kathryn Stamoulis, an adolescent sexuality psychologist, erroneously stated that Epstein, "[...] targeted girls that [sic] were so vulnerable. And this is something that most sexual predators do [...] The first step in the grooming process is spotting a vulnerable victim - someone who is financially disadvantaged or that [sic] already have some sexual trauma in their past. Sexual predators like Jeffrey Epstein have an eye for picking out someone who is in need of something and they identify that need, and then they exploit it [...]"

This is erroneous, because, per the documentary, Epstein didn't "target" the nymphets. The Palm Beach nymphets were targeted by other Palm Beach nymphets. Eileen Guggenheim introduced Maria Farmer to Epstein. And Vicky Ward shared of Ghislaine Maxwell, "She was a great connector for Jeffery."

Haley Robson shared that she was introduced to Epstein by a high school friend when she was 16-years-old who informed Robson that she could earn $200 per massage. Robson shared that her immediate reaction was, "This is my ticket out of West Palm - this is my way out." But interestingly, and in contrast to Dr. Stamoulis' expertise, Robson was a competitive equestrian and Robson's mother was a banker and her father was a police officer. However, Robson did share that she was raped when she was 15 by a 21-year-old man. She shared, "It was my first experience with a man." But she didn't shared if it was statutory rape or violent rape. Alan Dershowitz argued that there's an important distinction between the two. 

Robson shared with a detective that after Epstein touched her with his hands and a vibrator in inappropriate places, she rejected his advances, but she volunteered to deliver him nymphets for $200 per head. 

Detective: The girl that was going knew she would have to massage him?

Robson: She knew everything. 

Detective: How long have you been working for him?

Robson: I probably worked for him for a year.

Robson went on to share with the documentarians, "I probably recruited maybe 24 girls."

Robson: Those girls brought other girls, too. 

Detective: Okay.

Robson: So, it's like a train.

Detective: Who else was underage?

Robson: Under 18? All of them. 

Robson to documentarians, "I would recruit girls that were friends. I would just casually bring it up. And we would drive together to his house. I would take them to the room, and then I would walk out. Sometimes I would wait out by the pool. When the girls would leave, Jeffery would come outside to pay me [...]"

Detective: "At this point, you've clearly implicated yourself in a crime. Okay? You've taken girls to somebody's house for the purposes of [teen] prostitution [...] Now that's a pretty significant second-degree felony."

Robson correctly asked the documentarians, "What about the girl who recruited me. What happened to her? What about the girl that recruited the girl that recruited me?"

However, Dr. Stamoulis inexplicably opined, "The girls that [sic] are recruiting the other girls are definitely victims of Jeffery Epstein [...]"

But some, like Stuart Pivar, co-founder of New York Academy of Art, opine that the nymphet recruiters were criminals, like Epstein, who recruited nymphets for the purposes of consensual teen prostitution, but who were given a reprieve by the PBPD for their help in Epstein's investigation.