7 ms·

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating again

by CPLX 7y ago

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. Expressing doubt about this cultural norm, or especially advocating against it, is considered unacceptable. Of course one can argue with the merits of those two facts, but they are plainly true and fairly widely accepted. The very concept of statutory rape reinforces how clear this judgment is. The reference to "statutory" means that the mere facts of the act taking place mean that the conduct is off limits. Things like "consent" or even a misrepresentation of the person's age are generally considered irrelevant. As a society we've decided that there aren't really exceptions to this. If sex with minors occurs it's not OK, there isn't much need to further investigate why it happened. Stallman, and anyone else commenting here, has really no basis to claim ignorance of this phenomenally clear social norm, which if broken will result in being fired from just about any public facing institution. It's on a pretty short list of such norms, alongside things like displaying your genitals in a board meeting, ones highly principled views on nudism notwithstanding. While I appreciate the efforts to make this into some kind of principled argument, I don't find "first they came for the people advocating for sex with minors" to be particularly compelling. Nobody has suggested he be fined or jailed. His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know.

spats1990 7y ago
>Nobody has suggested he be fined or jailed. His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know. Exactly. There's no need to pretend, as some other comments in here are doing, that he's being hauled off by some sort of cultural police force.
lagadu 7y ago
> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.
- CPLX 7y ago
  Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a urinal? Assuming we agree that at least one or two things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with some observations: 1) Saying it’s ok for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that
  - ndury 7y ago
    Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics. Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping? This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation. It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?
    - CPLX 7y ago
      I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "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." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. I wish that were true, but the sufficiently well-connected and powerful continue not to be brought to account.
antientropic 7y ago
If this social norm is so "phenomenally clear", then why are there such wildly different ages of consent even among western countries and US states? It seems strange that the ability to consent magically appears the day you turn (say) 18. I mean, the law has to draw a line somewhere, but intellectuals like RMS should be allowed to talk about such things without being cast out of civilized society.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  RMS wasn’t an academic with tenure. Those are the only intellectuals who are free to discuss controversial things, apart from people with FU money, or a complete lack of fucks to give, like RMS.
prepend 7y ago
I don’t think Minsky is accused of statutory rape as the age of consent was 16 at the time of the accused event. So at the time, in that territory, sex with minors was legal. Personally I don’t think it’s ethical for an adult to sex with minors. But many countries and states have laws allowing sex with minors. Maybe those communities think it’s ethical, maybe it’s just one of those historical laws they haven’t gotten around to updating with modern ethics. So I don’t this this topic really has anything to do with pedophilia and how terrible that is.
vharuck 7y ago
>The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know. True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable: "High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press, so the organization doesn't want to be associated." They're free to employ and endorse, or end a relationship, with anyone at will (modulo labor laws). The worrying thing here is, despite decades of bad behavior, they didn't distance themselves until he expressed unpopular opinions picked up by social media. It's like the saying, "The ends don't justify the means." This smacks of letting social media voices have a say in staff choices. Even if most people agree with the outcome, it's the wrong process. Edits: removing tangents to focus on the points.
- CPLX 7y ago
  > True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable: > “High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press [ABOUT HIM BEING OK WITH STATUTORY RAPE AND PEDOPHILIA] so the organization doesn't want to be associated." Yeah that’s pretty much it. Yet here we all are, with so many people pretending not to understand it.
nebulous1 7y ago
> Things like "consent" or even a misrepresentation of the person's age are generally considered irrelevant Legally, frequently you are correct, but not always culturally. To leave Minsky aside, I believe a lot of people accept the misrepresentation argument even when the law doesn't, usually when the ages are close and the minor is somewhere they shouldn't have been allowed. The typical example would be a 20 year old meeting a 17 year old at an 18+ event. Stallman is an ivory tower thinker. His inability to accept the societal rules you mention are core to him being Stallman. At some point he seems to have decided that his moral philosophy revolves around the concept of harm rather than rules. This is what led him to his earlier posts on incest, sex with minors and necrophilia, if nobody is being harmed then in what way is it wrong? The most obvious answer is that Stallman is incorrect that nobody is being harmed, however I should point out that these topics are actually discussed in related academia (the incest and necrophilia ones are more popular because they doesn't garner the same backlash). The Minsky issue is complicated by the difference between what Stallman was defending and what now seems to be the actual case. As far as I can tell Giuffre was actually 18 (she was 17 the previous year when she was on the same flight as Minsky) and it seems she didn't actually have sex with Minsky (this isn't clear, she never actually said she did and apparently Minsky mentioned the encounter to people at the time and said he rejected her). However, Stallman was arguing for the facts as he thought they were, which was that Minsky did have sex with her when she was 17, with her instigating things at Epstein's behest. Stallman was again engaging his ivory tower, questioning how we can call him a rapist if she was 17 but not if she was 18, and how can we blame him for things he didn't know (that she was being coerced). This is exactly how we already knew Stallman thinks. He has ignored some things here, such as what 75 year old Minsky could reasonably believe was going on when an 18 year old came on to him on Epstein's island, but they're facts that could have been pointed out to him and might have changed his opinion. Or perhaps not, if that situation happened to Stallman he might indeed think that finally, after all these years, he has found the cute 18 year old who is into geriatric nerds.
traderjane 7y ago
So people were right to suggest that black people need special policing at the time when it was the right political message, or Bernie Sanders was quite mistaken to advocate for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. Many Americans still believe that black people have special criminal characteristics or that homosexuality is a severe spiritual evil. Perhaps more social harmony could’ve been achieved had we not advocated for convenient theories of the time. It’s history which has the opportunity of final judgement, and it almost always looks dimly on the moral sensibilities of their predecessors. Somewhere is a metaphorical Bernie whose career has disappeared, but I’m glad for those people who didn’t hop on political opportunism just because as a messaging and thought leader it’s the strong move which reads the room.
- CPLX 7y ago
  No, gay rights and equal rights for minorities are admirable. Advocating for adults to rape children, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Your argument appears to be that there is no way to tell the difference between good things and bad things. My counterargument is that there are ways to tell the difference. And that when you do, you'll conclude that adults raping children is one of the bad things.
  - frabbit 7y ago
    It may be unintentional on your part but your post seems to suggest that rms argued that adults raping children was acceptable. If that was intentional the you are lying. If it was not intentional the it's ironic that you are so sloppy and cavalier in your wording on a topic which is all about precision in language. Please stop.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      He did argue that adults raping children was acceptable, many times over the course of years. There's quotes in this thread. Any sex between adults and minors is rape, that's what the concept of statutory rape means. He has expressed that those interactions could be mitigated by "willing" and "voluntary" actions by the children, and that in those situations there's no real harm done. That's literally what he said. He's completely and totally within his rights to say that. I will support his rights to the death. But that saying shit like that is going to get you socially shunned, predictably, and I'm fine with a society that does that. Society, and the groups he leads, have the right to find those statements reprehensible and cut ties with him. And I think they should. I mean what's the counterargument that you're making, that he only kind of implied that raping kids was OK? That he merely insinuated it? That his suggestion that pedophilia was not that big of a deal fell short of actual advocacy? Assuming you successfully win the argument that there's an important distinction here how does that change the answer? The core point I've attempted to make is that if you write blog posts about how kids getting fucked by adults is no big deal you might lose your job. Do you find that concept confusing? I bet you don't. Nobody really does. He knew he was going to make people upset saying that and didn't care. That, in fact, is likely why he did it. Eventually, his actions had consequences.
mpweiher 7y ago
> Our culture has made a very bright line decision "Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent Things just got a lot murkier, didn't they. Actually, they have always been a lot murkier. Because "our culture" isn't actually homogenous. And these things have changed a lot over time. > Expressing doubt about this cultural norm Well, which norm excactly? The one at 14? Or the one at 18? "some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a single age." Murkier. "There are many "grey areas" in this area of law, some regarding unspecific and untried legislation, others brought about by debates regarding changing societal attitudes, and others due to conflicts between federal and state laws. These factors all make age of consent an often confusing subject, and a topic of highly charged debates" Are all the people in a society that has the 14 boundary horrible beyond the pale? Or maybe things are a bit more complicated than you make them out to be.
coryfklein 7y ago
> Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. It is not at all a very bright line when you can legally have sex with a consenting 16 year old in West Wendover, NV but be a criminal for the same act with a 17 year old in what is essentially the same city of Wendover, UT. Assuming that by "bright line" you're not referring to the boundary separating Nevada from Utah. But all of that is just the disparity between two states in the same country! That "bright line" gets even fuzzier when you factor in the global age of consent: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png

by CPLX 7y ago

spats1990 7y ago

>Nobody has suggested he be fined or jailed. His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know. Exactly. There's no need to pretend, as some other comments in here are doing, that he's being hauled off by some sort of cultural police force.

lagadu 7y ago

> His actions just make him unqualified to be a leader. So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there.

CPLX 7y ago
Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. Are you arguing that no social norms violation should ever result in being fired? You can go to work and scream at people at the top of your lungs? Tell the receptionist you’re glad she had a miscarriage? Use the sink as a urinal? Assuming we agree that at least one or two things may get you fired from your job, it’s then possible to follow up with some observations: 1) Saying it’s ok for adults to fuck minors is definitely on that list 2) I’m ok with that
- ndury 7y ago
  Correct me if i'm wrong but it sounds like you're trying to say 'People who have a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting are not entitled to have a certain opinion or preference that does not fall within the lines our "society" has drawn out to be normal?' AFAIK there are plenty of high positioned people in important positions whom have a special preference to something. Whether it be a kink or a total different view/approach on certain topics. Does that mean we're going to hunt down every one in a high position because they think outside of the box? Because they have a preference to something society seems not normal? Does that mean we'll need to hunt down every thought leader/high positioned CEO/CFO/COO/board member with public appearance that enjoys the occassional whipping? This topic is pretty disturbing to me personally. Qualified, intelligent people are criticized/publicly shamed for having thoughts/opinions/preferences which have absolutely nothing to do with their occupation. It feels to me as if we're, as a society, doing anything we can to remove people who think/feel differently from what they're actually good at/dedicated their life to. My thoughts/opinions might not stroke with what people here have written, if what has been reported is true the behavior is not OK but does that mean the man needs to be removed from a position he dedicated his life to?
  - CPLX 7y ago
    I mean the guy can think whatever the fuck he wants. He can even tell his friends. He can use nipple clamps and be consentingly spanked with kitchen implements. Nobody gives a shit about any of that stuff. But if you publicly say stuff like this: "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." "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing." Then other people might not want to make the highly discretionary decision to let you, specifically, run their organization.

goatinaboat 7y ago

Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. I wish that were true, but the sufficiently well-connected and powerful continue not to be brought to account.

antientropic 7y ago

If this social norm is so "phenomenally clear", then why are there such wildly different ages of consent even among western countries and US states? It seems strange that the ability to consent magically appears the day you turn (say) 18. I mean, the law has to draw a line somewhere, but intellectuals like RMS should be allowed to talk about such things without being cast out of civilized society.

barry-cotter 7y ago
RMS wasn’t an academic with tenure. Those are the only intellectuals who are free to discuss controversial things, apart from people with FU money, or a complete lack of fucks to give, like RMS.

prepend 7y ago

I don’t think Minsky is accused of statutory rape as the age of consent was 16 at the time of the accused event. So at the time, in that territory, sex with minors was legal. Personally I don’t think it’s ethical for an adult to sex with minors. But many countries and states have laws allowing sex with minors. Maybe those communities think it’s ethical, maybe it’s just one of those historical laws they haven’t gotten around to updating with modern ethics. So I don’t this this topic really has anything to do with pedophilia and how terrible that is.

vharuck 7y ago

>The other people in those organization do get to have a say too you know. True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable: "High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press, so the organization doesn't want to be associated." They're free to employ and endorse, or end a relationship, with anyone at will (modulo labor laws). The worrying thing here is, despite decades of bad behavior, they didn't distance themselves until he expressed unpopular opinions picked up by social media. It's like the saying, "The ends don't justify the means." This smacks of letting social media voices have a say in staff choices. Even if most people agree with the outcome, it's the wrong process. Edits: removing tangents to focus on the points.

CPLX 7y ago
> True, and when squinting, the scenario is understandable: > “High profile employee repeatedly receives negative press [ABOUT HIM BEING OK WITH STATUTORY RAPE AND PEDOPHILIA] so the organization doesn't want to be associated." Yeah that’s pretty much it. Yet here we all are, with so many people pretending not to understand it.

nebulous1 7y ago

> Things like "consent" or even a misrepresentation of the person's age are generally considered irrelevant Legally, frequently you are correct, but not always culturally. To leave Minsky aside, I believe a lot of people accept the misrepresentation argument even when the law doesn't, usually when the ages are close and the minor is somewhere they shouldn't have been allowed. The typical example would be a 20 year old meeting a 17 year old at an 18+ event. Stallman is an ivory tower thinker. His inability to accept the societal rules you mention are core to him being Stallman. At some point he seems to have decided that his moral philosophy revolves around the concept of harm rather than rules. This is what led him to his earlier posts on incest, sex with minors and necrophilia, if nobody is being harmed then in what way is it wrong? The most obvious answer is that Stallman is incorrect that nobody is being harmed, however I should point out that these topics are actually discussed in related academia (the incest and necrophilia ones are more popular because they doesn't garner the same backlash). The Minsky issue is complicated by the difference between what Stallman was defending and what now seems to be the actual case. As far as I can tell Giuffre was actually 18 (she was 17 the previous year when she was on the same flight as Minsky) and it seems she didn't actually have sex with Minsky (this isn't clear, she never actually said she did and apparently Minsky mentioned the encounter to people at the time and said he rejected her). However, Stallman was arguing for the facts as he thought they were, which was that Minsky did have sex with her when she was 17, with her instigating things at Epstein's behest. Stallman was again engaging his ivory tower, questioning how we can call him a rapist if she was 17 but not if she was 18, and how can we blame him for things he didn't know (that she was being coerced). This is exactly how we already knew Stallman thinks. He has ignored some things here, such as what 75 year old Minsky could reasonably believe was going on when an 18 year old came on to him on Epstein's island, but they're facts that could have been pointed out to him and might have changed his opinion. Or perhaps not, if that situation happened to Stallman he might indeed think that finally, after all these years, he has found the cute 18 year old who is into geriatric nerds.

traderjane 7y ago

So people were right to suggest that black people need special policing at the time when it was the right political message, or Bernie Sanders was quite mistaken to advocate for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. Many Americans still believe that black people have special criminal characteristics or that homosexuality is a severe spiritual evil. Perhaps more social harmony could’ve been achieved had we not advocated for convenient theories of the time. It’s history which has the opportunity of final judgement, and it almost always looks dimly on the moral sensibilities of their predecessors. Somewhere is a metaphorical Bernie whose career has disappeared, but I’m glad for those people who didn’t hop on political opportunism just because as a messaging and thought leader it’s the strong move which reads the room.

CPLX 7y ago
No, gay rights and equal rights for minorities are admirable. Advocating for adults to rape children, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Your argument appears to be that there is no way to tell the difference between good things and bad things. My counterargument is that there are ways to tell the difference. And that when you do, you'll conclude that adults raping children is one of the bad things.
- frabbit 7y ago
  It may be unintentional on your part but your post seems to suggest that rms argued that adults raping children was acceptable. If that was intentional the you are lying. If it was not intentional the it's ironic that you are so sloppy and cavalier in your wording on a topic which is all about precision in language. Please stop.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    He did argue that adults raping children was acceptable, many times over the course of years. There's quotes in this thread. Any sex between adults and minors is rape, that's what the concept of statutory rape means. He has expressed that those interactions could be mitigated by "willing" and "voluntary" actions by the children, and that in those situations there's no real harm done. That's literally what he said. He's completely and totally within his rights to say that. I will support his rights to the death. But that saying shit like that is going to get you socially shunned, predictably, and I'm fine with a society that does that. Society, and the groups he leads, have the right to find those statements reprehensible and cut ties with him. And I think they should. I mean what's the counterargument that you're making, that he only kind of implied that raping kids was OK? That he merely insinuated it? That his suggestion that pedophilia was not that big of a deal fell short of actual advocacy? Assuming you successfully win the argument that there's an important distinction here how does that change the answer? The core point I've attempted to make is that if you write blog posts about how kids getting fucked by adults is no big deal you might lose your job. Do you find that concept confusing? I bet you don't. Nobody really does. He knew he was going to make people upset saying that and didn't care. That, in fact, is likely why he did it. Eventually, his actions had consequences.

mpweiher 7y ago

> Our culture has made a very bright line decision "Age of consent laws vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 14 to 18" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent Things just got a lot murkier, didn't they. Actually, they have always been a lot murkier. Because "our culture" isn't actually homogenous. And these things have changed a lot over time. > Expressing doubt about this cultural norm Well, which norm excactly? The one at 14? Or the one at 18? "some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a single age." Murkier. "There are many "grey areas" in this area of law, some regarding unspecific and untried legislation, others brought about by debates regarding changing societal attitudes, and others due to conflicts between federal and state laws. These factors all make age of consent an often confusing subject, and a topic of highly charged debates" Are all the people in a society that has the 14 boundary horrible beyond the pale? Or maybe things are a bit more complicated than you make them out to be.

coryfklein 7y ago

> Our culture has made a very bright line decision that sex with minors is unacceptable. It is not at all a very bright line when you can legally have sex with a consenting 16 year old in West Wendover, NV but be a criminal for the same act with a 17 year old in what is essentially the same city of Wendover, UT. Assuming that by "bright line" you're not referring to the boundary separating Nevada from Utah. But all of that is just the disparity between two states in the same country! That "bright line" gets even fuzzier when you factor in the global age of consent: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent.png