9 ms·

>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. Which until a few year

>RMS was defending his friend who, at the age of 74, is accused of having sex with a 17 year old girl on a billionaire's private island. Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything. Playing the Advocatus Diaboli, why should i view this outcry as anything different then the Saudis stance on sex before marriage? Fundamentalist puritans being opposed to self determination shaming others into conformism? Its not like the US where you cant drink until you are 21, but get to join the army with 18, where sex ed is often reduced to abstinence only, where the government does its best to infringe into womens right to get abortions, where you can be prosecuted for sexting as a minor and lets not forgett where sex workers are almost across the country criminalized has any moral high ground on the topic what so ever. But thats besides the point. First the MIT donation and now this stuff over 3 corners. How about we focus on what actually is the problem here? How many people from both parties had connections to not a brothel owner but someone involved in human trafficking and coercing minors into sexwork? How he got away with this this despite being brought infront of a judge for it? Or why they were on that island in the first place and why Eppstein apparently invited so many people. The word compromat comes to mind. But these politicians arent so easy targets, people like Stallman or the guy at MIT are. The mob wants blood and it doesnt seem to matter whos. I would recommend checking your moral compass if you are at threat of being sued for slander after the discussion here.

colechristensen 7y ago
There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening. It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral. That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun. That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.
- blub 7y ago
  In Berlusconi's ~75yo case he was acquitted of having sex with a 17yo because the "fact is not a crime". Then he was accused of bribing witnesses 10 million €, so I guess we have to wait and see. Definitely morally dubious, especially in his case. It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    >It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances. I don't imagine there are any 17 year old girls having sex with 74 year old men who see a distinction between those two things.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- Digory 7y ago
  It is striking to see you say it, given the decades of immense cultural pressure to convince young Americans that of course you should be willing and happy to seek out sex with old billionaires -- it's fulfilling! It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment, however i am sure someone could also tell you how sex before marriage has an absolutely horrible impact on the people involved or how your assessment would also be true for prostitution in general. You likely heard "the speech" before when it comes to abortions. In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel. The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary. What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel. And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.
- nailer 7y ago
  Women and men trade resources for sex all the time. Are you aware of engagement rings? The only issue here is the age of the girl involved.
- coryfklein 7y ago
  You think there doesn't exist a single mentally healthy middle-class 17 year old girl who would have sex with an elderly man for a large sum of money? That only the poor disadvantaged girls solicit sugar daddies? This idea is counter-intuitive to me. When I was 17 my religious convictions prevented me from having sex with anyone, but I imagine that without those beliefs I would have at least put _some_ dollar figure on the price for me having sex with a 74 year old woman, and I certainly didn't have any history of abuse or desperation.
  - chungus_khan 7y ago
    There certainly do exist situations where that could happen. Epstein's island really isn't one though...
    - coryfklein 7y ago
      I'm sorry, maybe you have more knowledge about the situation on Epstein's island than I do? But I imagine that is exactly the kind of place that young women seeking sugar daddies would be attracted to. That's not to preclude the possibility (or likelihood) that non-consensual sex happens there. I'm just trying to understand why you would expect the sugar-daddy-seeking-young-women demographic to be completely absent.
      - widowlark 7y ago
        >young women children* >sugar daddies abusers
  - widowlark 7y ago
    The law has been set to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults. Being capable of making the decision and being able to make the decision properly are two different things - the law is there to protect you even when you don't think you need it. At 17 I didn't think a lot of things were good for me. It would have been easy for someone to trick me into doing something I shouldn't - that benefits them way more than it does me. What you are suggesting is that we should be okay with this. The law, precedent, and public opinion all disagree with you.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  "There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening." How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some. Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example .. But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power.
- collyw 7y ago
  If you offered enough money I am sure a fair number of 17 year old would be happy to accept. I have seen girls auctioning off their virginity after all.
blub 7y ago
It's still legal in large parts of Europe. What I don't get is the US... where the age of consent is I think 16, but everyone's making a huge fuss about the fact that someone was 17. Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is. This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.
- TomVDB 7y ago
  FYI: the age of consent in California is 18.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    California != the United States, which I assume was the GP's point (and also one of Stallman's points): the age of consent varies between jurisdictions even within the United States, let alone outside of it, so trying to declare "sex with someone under the legal age" as inherently immoral would require clarifying which legal age in order for that declaration to be meaningful. That is: it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not someone is old enough to give informed consent if there's no actually consistent definition of what "old enough" actually means. I personally consider 20 to be that age (with some lenience for situations where both parties were/are underage at the start of the intimate relationship), but that's based more on the typical "half plus 7" rule than anything particularly concrete.
- undersuit 7y ago
  The age of consent and the vagaries of how consent can be given varies between states. Some states set the age at 18, and can charge minors under the limit for statutory rape, some states have the age at 16 and allow marriage to children as young as 14 with parental permission...
- throwaway99111 7y ago
  I'll go ahead and say the quiet part loud. There is a changing definition of what is a child in the US. People generally under 24 are considered children, and I can recount a few people facing critique over dating people in their early twenties (<25) from dating men (mostly men) who are older. I've read an article that questions whether 16 year olds can be sexually active at all, that is, with teens their own age (other 16 yr olds), not with older people so nothing like pedophilia or an age difference at all. Another example is a thread I read on reddit questioning whether it was okay for a 17 year old musician making music with sexually explicit lyrics, presumably concerning sexual relations with others their own age. A lot of the Epstein drama seems to be driven by two pieces, political connections to Trump and Clinton (so it touches "both" sides if you will) and the reaction of this changing definition of childhood to the exploitation of these teens at the hand of Epstein and the perspectives of people either older or from countries with different ideas of the propriety of the sexuality of teenagers. The changing range of who is a child is why what rms said so digusting, because it is considered in kind with say, rape of a toddler or a preteen in the popular mind as the social definitions are shifting. The problem of course is this is very US centric, and there are of course people just living in different cultures and attitudes elsewhere. I have friends abroad were actually confused about the Epstein drama when they first read about it because to them, it was salacious but not as creepy as Americans think it is.
yibg 7y ago
So laws don’t matter as long as in some other jurisdictions or time it’s not illegal? You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  >But you should not expect to be free from the consequences. No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?
  - yibg 7y ago
    The parents comment was about it being ok to have sex with a 17 year old because that’s ok in some jurisdictions. I’m saying that’s not how laws work.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - cf141q5325 7y ago
      I am the parent and its not what i wrote. I would recommend reading it again. I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
      - yibg 7y ago
        “Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything.” What is this trying to say?
EpicEng 7y ago
>As long of course as no one is coerced into anything In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.
- cf141q5325 7y ago
  Yes and prostitution is a normal job like any other in my jurisdiction. Coercion isnt part of that. They pay taxes and get to sue if a client doesnt pay. I find the criminalization of sex workers as it is happening in the US extremely barbaric.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Yep, just a normal, level headed 17 year old girl looking to make a quick buck by sleeping with old, rich men. What 17 year old wouldn't love such a life? I'm with you on prostitution in general, but Epstein was a sleazebag and we know exactly what sort of girls he was grooming. There is no moral avenue that leads to sex with a 17 year old prostitute.
    - cf141q5325 7y ago
      Again, i am not disagreeing. I am making the argument that you can make an argument like Stallman did without deserving mob justice. Stallman broke with the strict morality code of his society and nothing more. That i might have the same opinion as the mob doesnt mean we should go around ignoring free speech and attacking anyone commiting the heresy of playing Advocatus Diaboli. Its not free speech if you only allow people saying what you like. I am also not talking about justifications for Epstein, i mentioned how unrelated Stallman is to the real problem here namely Epstein and his visitors.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        Reading through the comments I'm honestly a bit torn on the outcome for Stallman. Like most here, I think we are too quick to exile people for off color remarks. On the other hand, this isn't the first time Stallman has done something embarrassing, and given his relationship to this guy he should have been smart enough to just keep quiet. He's not just some programmer; he's a representative of MIT and the FSF. I understand why they want to disassociate themselves from him.

colechristensen 7y ago

There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening. It is extremely doubtful that a young woman would find herself in that situation in any other way than a long path of abuse and desperation. Taking advantage of that young woman is immoral. That isn't some puritanical, anti-sex philosophy that hates fun. That is empathy to the all too common situation of young vulnerable women being used for pleasure.

blub 7y ago
In Berlusconi's ~75yo case he was acquitted of having sex with a 17yo because the "fact is not a crime". Then he was accused of bribing witnesses 10 million €, so I guess we have to wait and see. Definitely morally dubious, especially in his case. It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >It's not clear if the girl did it for money, or was more or less nudged into this by her life circumstances. I don't imagine there are any 17 year old girls having sex with 74 year old men who see a distinction between those two things.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Digory 7y ago
It is striking to see you say it, given the decades of immense cultural pressure to convince young Americans that of course you should be willing and happy to seek out sex with old billionaires -- it's fulfilling! It's so hard to imagine the origins of the Playboy-era now. But it was dominant among the educated classes through the 80s or 90s. The change is mostly for the better. I suppose the pendulum will swing again some day, but likely not in my lifetime.
cf141q5325 7y ago
I dont necessarily disagree with your assessment, however i am sure someone could also tell you how sex before marriage has an absolutely horrible impact on the people involved or how your assessment would also be true for prostitution in general. You likely heard "the speech" before when it comes to abortions. In the end its weighing off protecting people from a presumed risk against infringing on their self determination. The question is clear cut when it comes to kids as we as a society accepted that their self determination isnt that great and infringing on it is fine most of the time. They have to brush their teeth, they dont get to drink alcohol and they cant work in a brothel. The question here is does the same rule for a 8 year old apply for a 17 year old. Most European societies see a huge difference when it comes to age and that the ways in which the self determination of a 17 year old can be restricted are a lot more limited. In the end infringing on someones self determination is just too grave of a violation to do it unless its absolutely necessary. What is instead illegal is not the action of the person presumed to be needing protection but make sure that exploiting that person is illegal. The Switzerland example still had it illegal to encourage or coerce girls to work in a brothel, which in practice means there was no one willing to risk running such a brothel. And again, this discussion misses the point. Its not why did Eppstein run a brothel on an island but how come he was able to engage in sex trafficking, coercing of minors and all of that under the nose of quite a lot of politicians.
nailer 7y ago
Women and men trade resources for sex all the time. Are you aware of engagement rings? The only issue here is the age of the girl involved.
coryfklein 7y ago
You think there doesn't exist a single mentally healthy middle-class 17 year old girl who would have sex with an elderly man for a large sum of money? That only the poor disadvantaged girls solicit sugar daddies? This idea is counter-intuitive to me. When I was 17 my religious convictions prevented me from having sex with anyone, but I imagine that without those beliefs I would have at least put _some_ dollar figure on the price for me having sex with a 74 year old woman, and I certainly didn't have any history of abuse or desperation.
- chungus_khan 7y ago
  There certainly do exist situations where that could happen. Epstein's island really isn't one though...
  - coryfklein 7y ago
    I'm sorry, maybe you have more knowledge about the situation on Epstein's island than I do? But I imagine that is exactly the kind of place that young women seeking sugar daddies would be attracted to. That's not to preclude the possibility (or likelihood) that non-consensual sex happens there. I'm just trying to understand why you would expect the sugar-daddy-seeking-young-women demographic to be completely absent.
    - widowlark 7y ago
      >young women children* >sugar daddies abusers
- widowlark 7y ago
  The law has been set to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults. Being capable of making the decision and being able to make the decision properly are two different things - the law is there to protect you even when you don't think you need it. At 17 I didn't think a lot of things were good for me. It would have been easy for someone to trick me into doing something I shouldn't - that benefits them way more than it does me. What you are suggesting is that we should be okay with this. The law, precedent, and public opinion all disagree with you.
hutzlibu 7y ago
"There isn't a situation where a 74 year old has sexual contact with a 17 year old on a billionaire's private island in which everyone is willing and happy with what is happening." How about, if the old person would be mick jagger? I could imagine, he still has his charms to some. Also I have seen young attractive women aproaching old yoga gurus for example .. But yeah, the old guy wasn't mick jagger, nor a yoga master and at best he did assume the girl was a 18+ old prostitue doing it willingly for money and power.
collyw 7y ago
If you offered enough money I am sure a fair number of 17 year old would be happy to accept. I have seen girls auctioning off their virginity after all.

blub 7y ago

It's still legal in large parts of Europe. What I don't get is the US... where the age of consent is I think 16, but everyone's making a huge fuss about the fact that someone was 17. Yes, it was rape and trafficking - that's terrible enough as it is, no need to make it look worse than it is. This is essentially diluting the most terrible crime of abusing young children.

TomVDB 7y ago
FYI: the age of consent in California is 18.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  California != the United States, which I assume was the GP's point (and also one of Stallman's points): the age of consent varies between jurisdictions even within the United States, let alone outside of it, so trying to declare "sex with someone under the legal age" as inherently immoral would require clarifying which legal age in order for that declaration to be meaningful. That is: it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not someone is old enough to give informed consent if there's no actually consistent definition of what "old enough" actually means. I personally consider 20 to be that age (with some lenience for situations where both parties were/are underage at the start of the intimate relationship), but that's based more on the typical "half plus 7" rule than anything particularly concrete.
undersuit 7y ago
The age of consent and the vagaries of how consent can be given varies between states. Some states set the age at 18, and can charge minors under the limit for statutory rape, some states have the age at 16 and allow marriage to children as young as 14 with parental permission...
throwaway99111 7y ago
I'll go ahead and say the quiet part loud. There is a changing definition of what is a child in the US. People generally under 24 are considered children, and I can recount a few people facing critique over dating people in their early twenties (<25) from dating men (mostly men) who are older. I've read an article that questions whether 16 year olds can be sexually active at all, that is, with teens their own age (other 16 yr olds), not with older people so nothing like pedophilia or an age difference at all. Another example is a thread I read on reddit questioning whether it was okay for a 17 year old musician making music with sexually explicit lyrics, presumably concerning sexual relations with others their own age. A lot of the Epstein drama seems to be driven by two pieces, political connections to Trump and Clinton (so it touches "both" sides if you will) and the reaction of this changing definition of childhood to the exploitation of these teens at the hand of Epstein and the perspectives of people either older or from countries with different ideas of the propriety of the sexuality of teenagers. The changing range of who is a child is why what rms said so digusting, because it is considered in kind with say, rape of a toddler or a preteen in the popular mind as the social definitions are shifting. The problem of course is this is very US centric, and there are of course people just living in different cultures and attitudes elsewhere. I have friends abroad were actually confused about the Epstein drama when they first read about it because to them, it was salacious but not as creepy as Americans think it is.

yibg 7y ago

So laws don’t matter as long as in some other jurisdictions or time it’s not illegal? You are free to disagree with the law as it’s written. You are even free to break the laws if you disagree strongly enough. But you should not expect to be free from the consequences.

cf141q5325 7y ago
>But you should not expect to be free from the consequences. No one does. its not about not prosecuting anyone for what happened on that Island. Its about Stallmans response to the allegations against someone else. Did you respond to the wrong comment by any chance?
- yibg 7y ago
  The parents comment was about it being ok to have sex with a 17 year old because that’s ok in some jurisdictions. I’m saying that’s not how laws work.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    I am the parent and its not what i wrote. I would recommend reading it again. I also dont see where you made the jump to the legal/illegal argument. Since we are talking about Stallmans speech, we are clearly not discussing illegal behavior but free speech. Or is what Stallman said illegal by now?
    - yibg 7y ago
      “Which until a few years ago was completely legal in for example Switzerland. As long of course as no one is coerced into anything.” What is this trying to say?

EpicEng 7y ago

>As long of course as no one is coerced into anything In what insane hypothetical does a 17 year old girl have consensual sex with a 74 year old man on a billionaire's island? At best it's prostitution, c'mon.

cf141q5325 7y ago
Yes and prostitution is a normal job like any other in my jurisdiction. Coercion isnt part of that. They pay taxes and get to sue if a client doesnt pay. I find the criminalization of sex workers as it is happening in the US extremely barbaric.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Yep, just a normal, level headed 17 year old girl looking to make a quick buck by sleeping with old, rich men. What 17 year old wouldn't love such a life? I'm with you on prostitution in general, but Epstein was a sleazebag and we know exactly what sort of girls he was grooming. There is no moral avenue that leads to sex with a 17 year old prostitute.
  - cf141q5325 7y ago
    Again, i am not disagreeing. I am making the argument that you can make an argument like Stallman did without deserving mob justice. Stallman broke with the strict morality code of his society and nothing more. That i might have the same opinion as the mob doesnt mean we should go around ignoring free speech and attacking anyone commiting the heresy of playing Advocatus Diaboli. Its not free speech if you only allow people saying what you like. I am also not talking about justifications for Epstein, i mentioned how unrelated Stallman is to the real problem here namely Epstein and his visitors.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      Reading through the comments I'm honestly a bit torn on the outcome for Stallman. Like most here, I think we are too quick to exile people for off color remarks. On the other hand, this isn't the first time Stallman has done something embarrassing, and given his relationship to this guy he should have been smart enough to just keep quiet. He's not just some programmer; he's a representative of MIT and the FSF. I understand why they want to disassociate themselves from him.