By David Futrelle
Stuart Pivar has a bad case of the blabbies, and we’re all the richer for it. Or possibly the poorer; I haven’t decided yet. Today, Mother Jones posted a long, sprawling, and exceedingly surreal interview with the octogenarian art collector/scientist/former best bud of Jeffrey Epstein, a man who clearly doesn’t know when it would be wiser to just shut his yap.
HINT: When you used to be Jeffrey Epstein’s best bud, and a reporter calls to ask for your thoughts on all things Epstein, that’s probably a good time for you to remain silent — especially if you know you have a tendency to ramble on about “16-year-old trollops” and the terrible of burdens of satyriasis (the male version of nymphomania).
The interview is quite a trip, and a long one at that; you shoud probably set aside the rest of the day to read it, leaving plenty of time for you to periodically shake your head in disbelief. Bring some water and a snack.
While Pivar insists that during his best-bud-with-Epstein days he knew nothing about Epstein’s sordid crimes against girls and women, and broke with the serial rapist as soon as he heard the first accusations against him, he nonetheless insists that Epstein had such a constant raging boner that he couldn’t really help himself. And over the course of the long interview, conducted by writer Leland Nally, Pivar reveals that his views on underage sexuality are not completely dissimilar from those of the late Epstein.
Here are the six ickiest, squickiest revelations from this eminently icky, squicky interview.
ONE: Pivar describes Epstein as as someone who was more ill than bad, comparing the dead serial rapist’s alleged “satyriasis” — his perpetual horniness — to … tuberculosis.
“[I]t’s a disease,” Pivar told Mother Jones.
It’s called satyriasis, and Jeffrey was afflicted with that. He couldn’t help himself. …
If he had tuberculosis it wouldn’t be called a perversion, would it? Because he coughed too much?
TWO: He thinks the girls and women that Epstein assaulted and exploited were “trollops” who knew what they were getting into.
Indeed, Pivar is quite fond of the word “trollop,” using it three separate times over the course of the interview, twice following the phrase “16-year-old.”
THREE: Pivar thinks that Epstein’s real problem was that “what he did was quantitative and not qualitative.” That is, what he did to the girls he exploited wasn’t really real rape because they were “complicit” and “complaisant.” The problem was just that he did so darn much of it.
If Jeffrey Epstein was found guilty of fooling around with one 16-year-old trollop, nobody would pay any attention. The trouble is, what he did was quantitative and not qualitative.
What Jeffrey did is nothing in comparison to the rapes and the forceful things, which people did. Jeffrey had to do with a bunch of women who were totally complicit. For years, they went, came there time and time and time again. And if there was only one of them who did it, no one would have noticed—except he made an industry out of it.
FOUR: Pivar insists that he was never invited to Epstein’s “Isle of Babes.” He also insists on calling it the “Isle of Babes,” using the phrase five times in the interview.
FIVE: Pivar apparently has quite a few thoughts about underage sex, though in this interview he somehow managed to stop himself from divulging them all.
[S]exual attraction starts at a very, very young age. When I was 14, I had to deal with a girl who was only 13. And somehow, I remember, it was at summer camp.
Oh Jesus no. Please spare us this 89-year-old’s reminiscences of summer camp sexual experimentation.
And I stopped having to do with her because of the tremendous age gap.
Oh thank god.
Oh wait, he’s still going?
Girls at the age of 12, 13, and 14 have sexual attraction to 14- and 15-year-olds. But it’s not supposed to be that way. And so, all kinds of rules get made. And nature is not allowed to take its course on account of civilization. Jeffrey broke those rules, big time. But what he was pursuing was the kind of, I suppose, sexual urges which would—why am I telling you this stuff for? Leave me alone. Go away.
Oddly, this was not Pivar’s only attempt to stop the interview; he made repeated attempts — only to forget about it a second or two later and go on talking and talking and talking.
SIX: This one isn’t so much icky as just weird, but apparently Epstein’s house was full of forged paintings and other fake art? And Epstein was proud of this?
Jeffrey was amused to have in his house fake art which looked like real art. Because of the fact that he was putting one over, so to speak. … And it amused him that people didn’t realize that. He was able to furnish his house with the fake paintings. Jeffrey had a collection of underage Rodins, for example, because what difference does it make if it’s real or not real?
I take back what I said about this one not being so icky. Even as a collector of fake art, Epstein apparently couldn’t — well, wouldn’t — stay away from the “underage Rodins.” He probably had a lot of fake Balthuses as well.
Go read the whole interview. You won’t regret it.
Well, to be honest, you probably will regret it. Heck, you probably regret reading this.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Huh. Pivar’s name seemed familiar to me, and then I remembered: he’s the kook who threatened to sue PZ Myers a few years ago, after PZ wrote critically (and entertainingly) about some pseudoscientific nonsense Pivar wrote. So watch out, David: he’s a litigious crank, and you might find yourself on the receiving end of a LOLsuit.
I love the term LOLsuit. Love!
Oh for goodness sake! Epstein was a sex offender who appears to have revelled in it. He knew what he was doing, I don’t buy Pivar’s ‘he was ill’ narrative. I have to watch out for inappropriate conduct as a possible side effect of my medication, so I monitor my behaviour and I’ve asked everyone round me to do the same and to call me out on it if I get out of order. It’s not that hard to behave oneself in this context. Epstein just didn’t want to.
Moggie: more likely he’ll sue Mother Jones for running the interview.
I disagree with David’s hint. When you’re feeling like rambling about criminal activity, PLEASE LET IT ALL OUT. We need to know how depraved the entire circle is.
(It might not be ideal for the individual though.)
Oh for pity’s sake. Satyriasis might be an explanation you give the doctor for a sprained wrist. Or in your defence at a divorce proceedings. No one HAS to rape teenagers and to imply that they do is irresponsible bordering on enabling behaviour.
What vile human beings.
Read that article? Sorry, not gonna.
I’m just glad it’s okay to refer to the Pivars and Epsteins of the world as creepy old dudes, not artists or luminaries with certain forgivable quirks or some other such bullshit. Same goes for the popular characterization of their young victims as “wise and worldly beyond their years,” “seductive teen trollops” or other such sewage straight out of a human trafficker’s fever dream.
Sorry, geezers, when girls sexually mature, their crushes don’t include guys decades older than they are. The “older” objects of their affections are high school age, max, or maybe entertainers who portray high schoolers. Live with it and leave the kids alone.
I’m so glad to live in a time where it seems basic human rights are within the grasp of women and girls. Just a few decades ago, Me Too and stories like this wouldn’t have any traction.
I had to dig out the article on the leaked Daily Stormer “style” “guide” there for someone and, hey, you’ll never guess who also likes to use the word “trollop”!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_n_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2
(I think the first place I came across the word “trollop” was in Marvel’s old Conan the Barbarian comics. They liked that word a lot. That, and “trull”.)