6 ms·

I feel like his defending pedophilia in cases where a "child consents" is a good argument for why sometimes the herd is right. His words are insensitive to tho

I feel like his defending pedophilia in cases where a "child consents" is a good argument for why sometimes the herd is right. His words are insensitive to those who are victims of pedophilia because it minimizes the impact and implicates the victim as being potentially receptive to the act.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Here we are... Proving my point. He expressed opinions which are not insensitive. It is totalitarian force people to only express the 'correct' opinion on an issue. In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries. I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence. There is a crucial difference between discussing an issue in general terms and targeting a specific individual who was a victim of that issue. Everything is being taken personally these days when it should not.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  I agree with you that any topic should be able to be discussed, but I think a modicum of forethought and perhaps a higher level of self-discipline should be employed when discussing sensitive topics such as pedophilia, because these subjects don't exist in a vacuum. RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement- he was just vomiting a baseless opinion, which he has every right to do. People, in turn, have every right to call his opinion callous and stupid. To his credit, he did reportedly change his view after enough people explained to him why children could not be expected to hold the responsibility of consenting to sex with an adult.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    > RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement I'm not sure what specific statement you have in mind. However what I wrote before, i.e. that someone below the official age of consent may be able to give informed consent is simply the reality. Reality is not black and white and does not conform to a specific world-view. Accusing about someone of "vomitting a baseless opinion" is not very inducive to discussion.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries. Can you name any Western country that allows people under 18 to be prostitutes? Especially if those people are the victims of coercive force? > I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence. Rape is a word defined in law and in English language. An activity may not meet the legal definition while meeting the English language definition. Saying that Minsky's actions were not so wrong because really it's not assault if violence wasn't used and that this rape isn't really rape is obviously problematic, especially when paired with Stallman's previous comments about child sexual abuse (familial abuse isn't a problem; willing child sexual abuse isn't harmful; images of child sexual abuse are fine).
  - lawnchair_larry 7y ago
    That is not what Stallman said.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Yes it is. Here he says the word "assaulting" is wrong: > The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. And here he says it's wrong because assault means force or violence: > The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. Here's where he denies this was rape: > I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. This is in response to someone saying that having sex with someone who is 17 in the Virgin Islands is rape.
      - mytailorisrich 7y ago
        Having sex with someone who is consenting, and is able to give informed consent, is neither assault nor rape "in the English language". In law it depends on the jurisdiction. As I mentioned, having sex with someone underage does not necessarily constitute rape though is usually constitutes "sexual assault". The USA are rather conservative with both a relatively 'old' age of consent and statutory rape laws. This can lead to ridiculous situations like labeling someone "rapist" just for having consensual sex with a 17 year old... One issue, which might have been part of Stallman's point, is that people tend to want to use only black and white terms in all circumstances, even when the reality is much more nuanced.
concordDance 7y ago
As a side note, it would be nice if we could actually use the proper terms for things. "Pedophilia" is a sexual attraction, the term you are looking for is "child molestation". Honestly, I think the overreaction to willing child sexual interaction does more harm to the child in many cases than the original acts (e.g. "victim" labelling, attacks against someone close to the child and removal from their life, being brainwashed into thinking something horrible happened to them until they believe it is horrible).
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  As leading scholars in the field have noted (such as Amy Adler), this happens on a larger level in society, too; the desire to protect the "innocence" of children has become a goal in itself, fueled through moral panics based on narratives which frame children as helpless creatures who barely know what they're doing. The final point of this is what Zanghinelli called a "gothic narrative" - you're either for any and all laws to protect the children, or you're against them and might as well be a pedophile yourself. Adler asserts further (citing various examples) that child pornography law has conditioned the general public to adopt the pedophilic gaze in which even artwork from the 18th c. depicting a nude child can be removed from a gallery because it might "titillate" the viewer. She says that while such laws are better than nothing, they also do some amount harm in sexualizing children.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > I think the overreaction to Luckily we have experts who have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point. And this point has no relevance to the topic, which is about a child who was coerced into sex against her will.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    This is somewhat off-topic, true. Do you happen to have anything more googlable than "experts have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point"?
    - 7y ago

mytailorisrich 7y ago

Here we are... Proving my point. He expressed opinions which are not insensitive. It is totalitarian force people to only express the 'correct' opinion on an issue. In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries. I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence. There is a crucial difference between discussing an issue in general terms and targeting a specific individual who was a victim of that issue. Everything is being taken personally these days when it should not.

RankingMember 7y ago
I agree with you that any topic should be able to be discussed, but I think a modicum of forethought and perhaps a higher level of self-discipline should be employed when discussing sensitive topics such as pedophilia, because these subjects don't exist in a vacuum. RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement- he was just vomiting a baseless opinion, which he has every right to do. People, in turn, have every right to call his opinion callous and stupid. To his credit, he did reportedly change his view after enough people explained to him why children could not be expected to hold the responsibility of consenting to sex with an adult.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > RMS gave no real provable basis for his statement I'm not sure what specific statement you have in mind. However what I wrote before, i.e. that someone below the official age of consent may be able to give informed consent is simply the reality. Reality is not black and white and does not conform to a specific world-view. Accusing about someone of "vomitting a baseless opinion" is not very inducive to discussion.
DanBC 7y ago
> In fact the opinions he expressed are actually the law in some Western countries. Can you name any Western country that allows people under 18 to be prostitutes? Especially if those people are the victims of coercive force? > I.e. that someone below the age of consent may be able to consent to sex and that, as a consequence, sexual activity with someone below the age of consent is not automatically rape though an offence. Rape is a word defined in law and in English language. An activity may not meet the legal definition while meeting the English language definition. Saying that Minsky's actions were not so wrong because really it's not assault if violence wasn't used and that this rape isn't really rape is obviously problematic, especially when paired with Stallman's previous comments about child sexual abuse (familial abuse isn't a problem; willing child sexual abuse isn't harmful; images of child sexual abuse are fine).
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  That is not what Stallman said.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Yes it is. Here he says the word "assaulting" is wrong: > The injustice is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation: taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which is much worse than X. And here he says it's wrong because assault means force or violence: > The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had sex. Here's where he denies this was rape: > I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17. This is in response to someone saying that having sex with someone who is 17 in the Virgin Islands is rape.
    - mytailorisrich 7y ago
      Having sex with someone who is consenting, and is able to give informed consent, is neither assault nor rape "in the English language". In law it depends on the jurisdiction. As I mentioned, having sex with someone underage does not necessarily constitute rape though is usually constitutes "sexual assault". The USA are rather conservative with both a relatively 'old' age of consent and statutory rape laws. This can lead to ridiculous situations like labeling someone "rapist" just for having consensual sex with a 17 year old... One issue, which might have been part of Stallman's point, is that people tend to want to use only black and white terms in all circumstances, even when the reality is much more nuanced.

concordDance 7y ago

As a side note, it would be nice if we could actually use the proper terms for things. "Pedophilia" is a sexual attraction, the term you are looking for is "child molestation". Honestly, I think the overreaction to willing child sexual interaction does more harm to the child in many cases than the original acts (e.g. "victim" labelling, attacks against someone close to the child and removal from their life, being brainwashed into thinking something horrible happened to them until they believe it is horrible).

claudiawerner 7y ago
As leading scholars in the field have noted (such as Amy Adler), this happens on a larger level in society, too; the desire to protect the "innocence" of children has become a goal in itself, fueled through moral panics based on narratives which frame children as helpless creatures who barely know what they're doing. The final point of this is what Zanghinelli called a "gothic narrative" - you're either for any and all laws to protect the children, or you're against them and might as well be a pedophile yourself. Adler asserts further (citing various examples) that child pornography law has conditioned the general public to adopt the pedophilic gaze in which even artwork from the 18th c. depicting a nude child can be removed from a gallery because it might "titillate" the viewer. She says that while such laws are better than nothing, they also do some amount harm in sexualizing children.
DanBC 7y ago
> I think the overreaction to Luckily we have experts who have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point. And this point has no relevance to the topic, which is about a child who was coerced into sex against her will.
- concordDance 7y ago
  This is somewhat off-topic, true. Do you happen to have anything more googlable than "experts have thoroughly debunked this NAMBLA recruiting point"?
  - 7y ago