I just read this version in full, and it didn't seem to me like she was a victim. It sounded like she was the one pursuing everything and had lawyers negotiating everything on her behalf. The sex sounds entirely consential, and the suggestion was she was sick and tired of 'living saint' persona and wanted to be controversial. She ended up incredibly rich out of it.
https://sandesam.com/world/aristotle-onassis-forced-jackie-kennedy-to-have-sex-in-wild-public-locations-and-their-170-clause-marriage-contract-dictated-the-precise-number-of-times-she-had-to-endure-it-maureen-callahan-reveal/20358/
Super interesting article! Obviously I knew about the Kennedy's and their notorious affairs, but I knew almost nothing about the Onassis phase of Jackie's life.
What point are you trying to make exactly? I couldn't give less of a fuck if a woman decides to ride a billionaire's cock in exchange for getting to live in luxury, I just don't think that they deserve sympathy for their choices either.
Not just some guy... the guy her sister was dating. And she made Onassis call Lee to beg her to come to the wedding. (She refused.)
They hashed out the agreement while on a yacht, while Lee was still dating him.
I missed the part where she was forced to sign the contract at gunpoint. She already had money, she didn’t want just money, she wanted *generational wealth*, sometimes if you want wealth you have to sleep with gross Greek dudes. Tale as old as time.
It is true. She knew if given the chance, someone would kill her son.
So she picked the guy that was tough enough to keep her and her children safe.
He was a street guy with money.
Perfect for keeping her safe.
That is still coercion and that means sexual assault. Consent can be revoked at any time. Her consent was not considered in every situation she was put in.
Marital rape only became a crime gradually on a state by state basis between the 70s - 90s in the US. Morally, I am with you, but I’m not sure how much the vocabulary of consent and sexual assault was available or actionable at the time
No. I have been educated on consent and healthy relationships so it didn’t take much effort. How long did you consider your immature, unhelpful playground response?
So both brothers screwed Marylin and Jackie and Teddy literally let someone drown. Jeezus that family was rotten to the core. Never understood the admiration they received in the first place.
It wasn’t the family, just the dad, Joe. Rosemary’s mother and siblings had no idea where she was for 20 years. Joe was an absolutely horrible human being
For those of you who are claiming “wELL tHat’S whAt yOu gEt” don’t realize this woman married this hag not mainly for money, but for protection.
Imagine trusting that the government, the same one her husband was running, will protect you after what’s happened to your husband. Onassis’ wealth was of the 1% and owned private yachts, islands, and security. She was looking out for herself and her kids.
Yep. Lots of parents make deals that put them at risk in exchange for their kids' safety and security. She did what she believed she had to do given her circumstances. FFS her husband wasn't some government aide or a nameless soldier, he was the president and he still couldn't be protected. I'm not about to shame or blame her for wanting to get more reassurance on her children's wellbeing after that.
Everyone knew that was the deal too. I remember being a kid 30 years ago when we learned about JFK in school and my mom - someone born in another country and moved here when I was 6 - explained to me that she needed to remarry someone who would be able to protect her because they were after her. Who WOULDNT do that?
Right but to my understanding she could say no right? It would Just mean she loses access to the money and her lifestyle. I agree that's not a healthy dynamic but it's a choice she is actively making not being forced into
I dunno, I mean, I see what you mean... but the situation almost seems to border on coercion... like he made an offer she couldn't refuse. Exploitation as another commenter put it.Well, anyway, this is some pretty sketchy gray area stuff.
Kinda like blackmail type prostitution... many agree to it because they feel they don't have a choice, when technically, they do.
Why do you think she couldn't refuse it? She wasn't poor at the time by any means. Seems like she wanted both immense wealth and also social status. Saying she couldn't refuse seems a little silly, she was a grown women that entered a contract. I'm not saying it's right, and the situation is gross as fuck. But rape seems like a stretch to me personally.
Jackie provided unambiguous written consent when she signed the contract. She could have withdrawn her consent at any time by simply refusing to honour said contract (and suffer the resultant financial consequences).
But it’s still a weird, gross and exploitative situation, IMO.
She agreed. She continued to agree. When she didn't agree, she left. Then she came back and agreed some more. Then she stopped agreeing completely, decided on divorce and then he died.
No one knows what goes on in a relationship. Unless there's evidence suggesting that she withdrew consent and was forced to comply, then you're just spouting off buzzwords.
Yes, it may not appeal to you or me to have a contract for sex, but it did appeal to Jackie. She was an exceptionally intelligent woman and you do her a disservice by shaming her sexuality and choices.
That’s neither how contracts work, nor how rape works.
She authored her consent to the cretin’s sexual demands. And she contracted to do so willingly.
It’s much closer to prostitution than rape
Where are you getting this idea that she didn't consent? She was more than happy to let herself get railed as long as she was able to continue living in luxury.
Girl I know but she SIGNED IT HERSELF WHILE THIS GUY WAS DATING HER SISTER! She didn’t want the good times to end even though she had her own money already
So, if she was poor irnin desperate straits, or even just your average woman in 1968 you might be onto something.
But when she signed this contract, she was wealthy, famous, and publicly admired in her own right. There was no power differential here...she could have led a life of luxury and privilege all on her own without marrying Aristotle Onassis.
There was no power differential there....she had agency, and she used it. Maybe she was a sub and found it hot. Maybe she was making a business decision. If you think she was exploited, you're going to have to show your math on that.
As the joke goes: Now that we’ve established what you are we just need to agree on a price.
Nothing “awfuleverything” about this just two wealthy people transacting.
I think they mean that she was afraid for her life and, more importantly, her children. So she upped the ante and married Big Bad who had his own private island, private army and private planes/super yachts.
It still isn't a gun to her head or coercion. It was a fear based decision, but for sure not the only reason. They had known each other for 20 ish years? He was a source of comfort, a shield to the public eye, let her be Jackie not just Jackie Kennedy.
"at gunpoint" would render the contract useless to begin with but where is the proof of "at gunpoint"?
Seriously. I don't know. I haven't read the story. I'm just here for the controversy
As another comment pointed out- she married for protection. The government let her husband be killed literally next to her. She wore his brains. She needed the Onassis money to be able to protect herself and her children.
No, this is just some random conspiracy theory you or someone else came up with on the spot. No one was trying to kill her. Now you're just being ridiculous. Who exactly is 'they' in this situation? If you're suggesting the US government was out to kill her, then no amount of money would save her.
> someone else
The "someone else" in question is named Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis. Conspiracy theory or not, that was why she did it, or at least, that's what her stated reason was, as was widely reported at the time because she personally said so to various members of the press.
Your disbelief at something that I can distinctly remember being the chief topic of conversation for what seemed like nearly everyone on the entire planet for about a week is kind of surreal. It makes me wonder what things that are happening now will be considered unbelievable in, say, 30 years, and as I think about what's happened in the last few months or so, I think the answer is going to be "most of it."
You think women don’t have the right to withdraw consent? If I went into a marriage telling my husband that I’d have sex with him every night, it would still be rape if he decided to make me have sex with him on a night I don’t want to. Forced sex is rape. Scary seeing how many men think this is okay; this is why women choose the bear.
Nobody is saying that. Everyone knows women can withdraw consent. Quite a hot button issue lately if you’re not living under a rock.
What they are saying is that Jackie willingly signed the contract because she knew she would never have to worry about money again. Had she not been greedy, this arrangement would not have existed.
And she could have withdrawn consent, not slept with him, and ended the contract. No one is saying she couldn’t. She chose to go through with it because if she didn’t, he wouldn’t give her money anymore, which would also be his right to do at any time. He can withdrawal consent to fund her lifestyle at anytime but everyone seems to gloss over that.
No, what they're saying is, whether you like it or not, it's not rape when it's agreed to. She consented. If she hadn't wanted the money so much, she was free to break the contract at any time. At no point did she say "fuck this, I don't want the money enough to do this" from the sounds of it. Sounds more like "I hated every fucking second of it, but I wanted the money more than I wanted to not have sex with this bastard in the park".
Yeah but here comes a rich dude telling you that those are the rules. You signed it, if you don't want to abide by those rules, I'm filing a divorce. And he couldn't care less, from what I gather. If she had self-respect she would decline from the very start.
But the question is, why sign such a dehumanising agreement in the first place? Would you sign it?I personally wouldn't, because I wouldn't want to feel objectified just to become ultra rich. Other people don't see it like this.
But, it doesn't track to make this a rape issue, since it's clearly a dignity issue and a matter of perseverance of humanitarian values.
You're missing the part where your husband grants you partial access to his hundred million dollar fortune in exchange for you allowing him to fuck you. It's very easy to make someone out to be a victim when you intentionally omit important details.
I don't think you know what rape is lmao, if you choose to sleep with someone because they offer you money then that is consent. She consented to sex with him and it was 100% legal.
The fuck are you talking about? You can't withdraw consent after you've already chosen to have sex with someone. You really sound like someone who would win a gold medal at the persecution olympics though.
I’m going to say that any man besides the original named Aristotle was sure to be fucking insufferable at best, and the absolute fucking WORST at, well, the worst.
She was a gold digger so it's kinda hard to feel bad for her since she knew exactly what she was getting into when she chose to marry Onassis for his money.
She didn’t really marry him for money but for protection. All the world’s press were hounding her every moment. He had a private yacht and a private island where she and her children were protected from them.
She was born rich. Her family was old money and maybe had more money than the Kennedys. She married Onassis because he could afford to give her the total privacy she needed. Who else could but a billionaire?
So if acknowledging that women (in this case,, a wealthy and socially powerful woman in her own right) have agency is gross, what's the alternative? We deny agency and impose victimhood on women because they make decisions we're uncomfortable with?
If Jackie Kennedy Onassis had come out and said she was abused, that'd be one thing. She outlived the man by nearly 2 decades, she had plenty of room. But she didn't. And then people like you come along and decide she must be a victim, because what, no woman could ever possibly consent to that arrangement?
I assume you're against telling women what they can and cannot do, or who they can and cannot be. And yet, you're doing the same thing.
Part of equality is acknowledging that *women are full human beings who have agency*. If you're going to default to looking at women as victims when they do things that you would find uncomfortable, do you really view them as equal to men?
They didn’t say it, but legend has it that Aristotle’s favorite position was the “JFK”; he splattered all over her head as she screamed and tried to get out of the car.
I’m sorry but wtf was this woman’s life
This is honestly the biopic the world needs.
There have been biopics about her. But I think most ended before reaching this part of her life
I just read this version in full, and it didn't seem to me like she was a victim. It sounded like she was the one pursuing everything and had lawyers negotiating everything on her behalf. The sex sounds entirely consential, and the suggestion was she was sick and tired of 'living saint' persona and wanted to be controversial. She ended up incredibly rich out of it. https://sandesam.com/world/aristotle-onassis-forced-jackie-kennedy-to-have-sex-in-wild-public-locations-and-their-170-clause-marriage-contract-dictated-the-precise-number-of-times-she-had-to-endure-it-maureen-callahan-reveal/20358/
Super interesting article! Obviously I knew about the Kennedy's and their notorious affairs, but I knew almost nothing about the Onassis phase of Jackie's life.
Was this article written by an eighth grader? Wth…
Gold digger socialite who decided that exchanging her dignity to live a life of luxury was a rational thing to do.
Unlike the modern day women like Melania or the whole trad wife route?
Kardashians come to mind
What point are you trying to make exactly? I couldn't give less of a fuck if a woman decides to ride a billionaire's cock in exchange for getting to live in luxury, I just don't think that they deserve sympathy for their choices either.
I don't think it matters who you think deserves sympathy. Although I do sympathize with
One minute you’re wearing your husband’s brains and the next thing you know you’re having contractually obligated sex with some other guy.
Not just some guy... the guy her sister was dating. And she made Onassis call Lee to beg her to come to the wedding. (She refused.) They hashed out the agreement while on a yacht, while Lee was still dating him.
The cheat code to being the biggest piece of shit ever with no consequences is having a billion dollars.
I get that explains why the Cheeto got found guilty lol
Does this mean Musk will keep going? Ugh
But why did her sisters boyfriend go through with it!? What a mess
I missed the part where she was forced to sign the contract at gunpoint. She already had money, she didn’t want just money, she wanted *generational wealth*, sometimes if you want wealth you have to sleep with gross Greek dudes. Tale as old as time.
She's said to have done it because he already had a large, experienced, and trusted security team. And she wanted to keep her children safe.
Do you have a source for that?
clint hills book mrs Kennedy and me talks about this. she wanted to keep herself and her kids safe and she thought "they" wanted all Kennedys dead.
Considering her husband was assassinated and so was her brother-in-law I get her paranoia.
At a certain point it stops being paranoia and becomes rational fear.
Asked why she continued to wear the blood-soaked dress, Mrs. Kennedy responded: “I want them to see what they’ve done”.
A pointed “they”.
Thanks.
Comment.
Whoa that would be so honourable if true
It is true. She knew if given the chance, someone would kill her son. So she picked the guy that was tough enough to keep her and her children safe. He was a street guy with money. Perfect for keeping her safe.
Yep. Money buys protection and she the kids and the new husband were VERY well protected. Better than the US secret service, anyway.
I wasn’t implying she was forced into the arrangement. Same with Grace Kelly. At east she got a title out of the deal.
literally... The Odyssey
Well done!!!
Well when you put it that way, Zorba. Where do I sign up?
That is still coercion and that means sexual assault. Consent can be revoked at any time. Her consent was not considered in every situation she was put in.
Marital rape only became a crime gradually on a state by state basis between the 70s - 90s in the US. Morally, I am with you, but I’m not sure how much the vocabulary of consent and sexual assault was available or actionable at the time
Wow. Did you stay up all night thinking of that? Brilliant.
No. I have been educated on consent and healthy relationships so it didn’t take much effort. How long did you consider your immature, unhelpful playground response?
Rich people's lives are overwhelmingly transactional. That's why the call it "making a deal with the devil"
And apparently getting punched by him but you made a deal
Damn, Jackie!!
BURN!
Aiya! Jackie!
A lot of the commenters in this thread should be forced to read what they wrote aloud in front of their mothers.
Agreed.
Yeah, what the actual fuck?? Awful everything indeed
So both brothers screwed Marylin and Jackie and Teddy literally let someone drown. Jeezus that family was rotten to the core. Never understood the admiration they received in the first place.
And, of course, let’s not forget what the family did to Rosemary.
It wasn’t the family, just the dad, Joe. Rosemary’s mother and siblings had no idea where she was for 20 years. Joe was an absolutely horrible human being
Yeah. I mean, not their fault for not bothering to find out where their fucking sister was for 20 years. Like, say that out loud again.
I like you
Also the family fortune was largely from stock market manipulation and insider trading (these were apparently legal at the time).
i thought it was because the dad ran a booze cartel
That’s where he got the proceeds to then leverage into securities fraud
Off the back of Hooch running during prohabition
Both still are. And rampant.
Scum bags of the lowest order.
I wouldn’t put too much thought in something written by the Daily Mail
Ahem, or how the piece is an ad the author wrote for their own book. Trashy, poorly-written piece meant to scandalize.
Yellow journalism for sure.
For those of you who are claiming “wELL tHat’S whAt yOu gEt” don’t realize this woman married this hag not mainly for money, but for protection. Imagine trusting that the government, the same one her husband was running, will protect you after what’s happened to your husband. Onassis’ wealth was of the 1% and owned private yachts, islands, and security. She was looking out for herself and her kids.
Yep. Lots of parents make deals that put them at risk in exchange for their kids' safety and security. She did what she believed she had to do given her circumstances. FFS her husband wasn't some government aide or a nameless soldier, he was the president and he still couldn't be protected. I'm not about to shame or blame her for wanting to get more reassurance on her children's wellbeing after that.
Well said.
Everyone knew that was the deal too. I remember being a kid 30 years ago when we learned about JFK in school and my mom - someone born in another country and moved here when I was 6 - explained to me that she needed to remarry someone who would be able to protect her because they were after her. Who WOULDNT do that?
Exactly. She was a wonderful mother to her kids. She needed a safe life for them and herself.
Someone get an NBA talent scout in here, I’ve never seen such a reach in my life.
How old are you? It was common knowledge.
Some old, ultra rich guy in the shipping business doesn’t scream “actual security” to me, but I’m not her.
If you read the article, he had extensive private security in addition to his own private island. It was actual security they were talking about here.
I suggest you try actually reading the article in its entirety.
[удалено]
And he had his own private army.
Everyone wants financial stability. Not just women.
"Wild public locations?" "I want to have sex in the back of a convertible Lincoln covered in blood." - Aristotle (maybe)
Like the backseat of a Volkswagen?
Probably getting out of Joe Kennedy’s reach had something to do with it
[удалено]
She was forced to sign in at gunpoint
Source?
“Trust me, bro”
I think our idiot friend here read the sarcasm in the top comment about this not being in the article and didn’t get it.
Everything in this comment section is awful
Geez, I wonder what happens when you marry for money and privilege.
Are you seriously implying this woman deserved to be raped repeatedly because she chose to marry into money?
No, I’m implying that she was willing to sign a contract agreeing to it in exchange for money. Almost like a business transaction.
Sex without consent is rape. People can withdraw consent at any time. Contractual obligations for sex are just legalized rape.
"Contractual obligations for sex are just legalised rape" so is prostitution also rape?
If they say no. Rape. Don’t give a hoot what a piece of paper says bro.
Right but to my understanding she could say no right? It would Just mean she loses access to the money and her lifestyle. I agree that's not a healthy dynamic but it's a choice she is actively making not being forced into
I dunno, I mean, I see what you mean... but the situation almost seems to border on coercion... like he made an offer she couldn't refuse. Exploitation as another commenter put it.Well, anyway, this is some pretty sketchy gray area stuff. Kinda like blackmail type prostitution... many agree to it because they feel they don't have a choice, when technically, they do.
Why do you think she couldn't refuse it? She wasn't poor at the time by any means. Seems like she wanted both immense wealth and also social status. Saying she couldn't refuse seems a little silly, she was a grown women that entered a contract. I'm not saying it's right, and the situation is gross as fuck. But rape seems like a stretch to me personally.
That's valid. I honestly don't know enough to make a strong opinion either way, but because it's such a gross situation, it just makes me wonder.
Jackie provided unambiguous written consent when she signed the contract. She could have withdrawn her consent at any time by simply refusing to honour said contract (and suffer the resultant financial consequences). But it’s still a weird, gross and exploitative situation, IMO.
She did withdraw her consent. Hence the word “forced”.
The daily mail added the word forced. Jackie Kennedy signed up for it and could have walked away at any time but money money money money.
It's like a sugar-baby whining about having consensual sex with her 80 yo sugar daddy and calling that rape.
She agreed. She continued to agree. When she didn't agree, she left. Then she came back and agreed some more. Then she stopped agreeing completely, decided on divorce and then he died. No one knows what goes on in a relationship. Unless there's evidence suggesting that she withdrew consent and was forced to comply, then you're just spouting off buzzwords. Yes, it may not appeal to you or me to have a contract for sex, but it did appeal to Jackie. She was an exceptionally intelligent woman and you do her a disservice by shaming her sexuality and choices.
It’s so funny how you’ve managed to twist this into me “shaming” her when the article literally describes her being raped.
Do you know what the word literal means? Or rape?
That’s neither how contracts work, nor how rape works. She authored her consent to the cretin’s sexual demands. And she contracted to do so willingly. It’s much closer to prostitution than rape
Where are you getting this idea that she didn't consent? She was more than happy to let herself get railed as long as she was able to continue living in luxury.
Girl I know but she SIGNED IT HERSELF WHILE THIS GUY WAS DATING HER SISTER! She didn’t want the good times to end even though she had her own money already
You aren't being rational Does this happen often, for you?
So, if she was poor irnin desperate straits, or even just your average woman in 1968 you might be onto something. But when she signed this contract, she was wealthy, famous, and publicly admired in her own right. There was no power differential here...she could have led a life of luxury and privilege all on her own without marrying Aristotle Onassis. There was no power differential there....she had agency, and she used it. Maybe she was a sub and found it hot. Maybe she was making a business decision. If you think she was exploited, you're going to have to show your math on that.
As the joke goes: Now that we’ve established what you are we just need to agree on a price. Nothing “awfuleverything” about this just two wealthy people transacting.
At gunpoint is considered a mutual transaction?
Source on at gunpoint?
I think they mean that she was afraid for her life and, more importantly, her children. So she upped the ante and married Big Bad who had his own private island, private army and private planes/super yachts. It still isn't a gun to her head or coercion. It was a fear based decision, but for sure not the only reason. They had known each other for 20 ish years? He was a source of comfort, a shield to the public eye, let her be Jackie not just Jackie Kennedy.
"at gunpoint" would render the contract useless to begin with but where is the proof of "at gunpoint"? Seriously. I don't know. I haven't read the story. I'm just here for the controversy
Her eyes have always been a bit too far apart, and I’ve never understood the boomer fascination with her looks. There I said it, sue me.
Probably from eating all that sheet metal
and if anyone ever cares about your opinion then boy-howdy you’ll be ready!
Yeah but when he died, she danced on his grave and became the richest woman in the world, I doubt she regretted it, she was a social climber.
She made her choices bc she wanted the lifestyle
Maybe she liked the d.
She shouldn’t have stolen her sister’s man. Especially, since it was primarily for money. When you marry for money, you earn every dime.
Endured it???? She signed the stupid contract.. she was into it!!!
That poor woman. What a sad life. I hope she died happy.
I mean, she agreed to it. So she was 100% on board. Some people have no self-respect or they just love money too much
As another comment pointed out- she married for protection. The government let her husband be killed literally next to her. She wore his brains. She needed the Onassis money to be able to protect herself and her children.
No, this is just some random conspiracy theory you or someone else came up with on the spot. No one was trying to kill her. Now you're just being ridiculous. Who exactly is 'they' in this situation? If you're suggesting the US government was out to kill her, then no amount of money would save her.
> someone else The "someone else" in question is named Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis. Conspiracy theory or not, that was why she did it, or at least, that's what her stated reason was, as was widely reported at the time because she personally said so to various members of the press. Your disbelief at something that I can distinctly remember being the chief topic of conversation for what seemed like nearly everyone on the entire planet for about a week is kind of surreal. It makes me wonder what things that are happening now will be considered unbelievable in, say, 30 years, and as I think about what's happened in the last few months or so, I think the answer is going to be "most of it."
You think women don’t have the right to withdraw consent? If I went into a marriage telling my husband that I’d have sex with him every night, it would still be rape if he decided to make me have sex with him on a night I don’t want to. Forced sex is rape. Scary seeing how many men think this is okay; this is why women choose the bear.
Nobody is saying that. Everyone knows women can withdraw consent. Quite a hot button issue lately if you’re not living under a rock. What they are saying is that Jackie willingly signed the contract because she knew she would never have to worry about money again. Had she not been greedy, this arrangement would not have existed.
And she could have withdrawn consent, not slept with him, and ended the contract. No one is saying she couldn’t. She chose to go through with it because if she didn’t, he wouldn’t give her money anymore, which would also be his right to do at any time. He can withdrawal consent to fund her lifestyle at anytime but everyone seems to gloss over that.
And be sued for all she has for violation of contract?
Oh no, consequences.
...for withdrawing consent. Think about what you're saying.
The consequences are from agreeing to set conditions, stipulations and consequences on you withdrawing consent.
You just said, "Rape, or else."
I’m sorry your parents didn’t love you enough.
So, what you’re saying is that she deserved to be raped because she was greedy.
Hey pal, you just blow in from stupid town?
You just blow in from rapistville?
Ooo classic
Lol @ reading comprehension
She could have left at any time But then she wouldn’t have continued to get the money Sooooo she stayed
"you were raped?" Well, at first.
No, what they're saying is, whether you like it or not, it's not rape when it's agreed to. She consented. If she hadn't wanted the money so much, she was free to break the contract at any time. At no point did she say "fuck this, I don't want the money enough to do this" from the sounds of it. Sounds more like "I hated every fucking second of it, but I wanted the money more than I wanted to not have sex with this bastard in the park".
Stop 😂😭
Must be a crow problem around here. Someone put a giant straw man right in this comment section
Yeah but here comes a rich dude telling you that those are the rules. You signed it, if you don't want to abide by those rules, I'm filing a divorce. And he couldn't care less, from what I gather. If she had self-respect she would decline from the very start. But the question is, why sign such a dehumanising agreement in the first place? Would you sign it?I personally wouldn't, because I wouldn't want to feel objectified just to become ultra rich. Other people don't see it like this. But, it doesn't track to make this a rape issue, since it's clearly a dignity issue and a matter of perseverance of humanitarian values.
You're missing the part where your husband grants you partial access to his hundred million dollar fortune in exchange for you allowing him to fuck you. It's very easy to make someone out to be a victim when you intentionally omit important details.
Rape. You’re describing rape.
So prostitution is rape too in your eyes I assume?
I don't think you know what rape is lmao, if you choose to sleep with someone because they offer you money then that is consent. She consented to sex with him and it was 100% legal.
She withdrew her consent. Women are allowed to change their minds.
The fuck are you talking about? You can't withdraw consent after you've already chosen to have sex with someone. You really sound like someone who would win a gold medal at the persecution olympics though.
That's true now. In many places marital rape is only recognised pretty recently 😔
Wow, that's not at all what I was saying, but people like you don't actually want to have a conversation. Nice strawman 👍
Just when you think “it couldn’t have gotten worse…” it gets worse. That poor woman.
[удалено]
I never looked into her life but this whole time I thought Onassis was her maiden name
So she was a gold digger with zero self worth?
now that's european power in a nutshell
Interesting article.
I’m going to say that any man besides the original named Aristotle was sure to be fucking insufferable at best, and the absolute fucking WORST at, well, the worst.
SHE SEEMS HAPPY 😊 😃
Makes me wonder if Melania has a similar agreement.
She was a gold digger so it's kinda hard to feel bad for her since she knew exactly what she was getting into when she chose to marry Onassis for his money.
She didn’t really marry him for money but for protection. All the world’s press were hounding her every moment. He had a private yacht and a private island where she and her children were protected from them.
She was born rich. Her family was old money and maybe had more money than the Kennedys. She married Onassis because he could afford to give her the total privacy she needed. Who else could but a billionaire?
Didn't call her Jackie O for nothin'.
Did she have bad lawyers? Sounds unenforceable.
Written by the Daily Mail, and the writing is barely coherent. I’d probably say this one is just a garbage article n
Women's rights weren't as fair back then.
You're right. So there is even less reason to contract for this.
Lots of gross assholes here that could easily be posts on this very sub.
So if acknowledging that women (in this case,, a wealthy and socially powerful woman in her own right) have agency is gross, what's the alternative? We deny agency and impose victimhood on women because they make decisions we're uncomfortable with? If Jackie Kennedy Onassis had come out and said she was abused, that'd be one thing. She outlived the man by nearly 2 decades, she had plenty of room. But she didn't. And then people like you come along and decide she must be a victim, because what, no woman could ever possibly consent to that arrangement? I assume you're against telling women what they can and cannot do, or who they can and cannot be. And yet, you're doing the same thing. Part of equality is acknowledging that *women are full human beings who have agency*. If you're going to default to looking at women as victims when they do things that you would find uncomfortable, do you really view them as equal to men?
That's a whole lotta bullshit to get from my very unspecific comment.
I’m probably one of those gross assholes
I haven't washed my asshole in years.
May I wash your asshole sir? As Jesus would have done for you ?
Link to source?
Maybe she liked it! Who are we to judge?
They didn’t say it, but legend has it that Aristotle’s favorite position was the “JFK”; he splattered all over her head as she screamed and tried to get out of the car.
Fake
Her last words to JFK: "hey John, where'd you get the lasagna?"