MAP Forum

I came across a long investigative article about Richard Stallman, a front man of open source. The author went to great lengths to prove that Stallman endorses sex with children and holds liberal views on that matter.

https://drewdevault.com/2023/11/25/2023 ... n-sex.html

The article looks very professionally and reasonably written - from the point of view of an average reader not knowing much about the topic. I want to emphasize a point the author is making throughout the whole text which is the differentiation between children and teenagers.

The author writes:

Stallman cares deeply about language and its usage. His strange and deliberate usage of the word “children” is also found many times throughout his political notes over the years. For example:

It sounds horrible: “UN peacekeepers accused of child rape in South Sudan.” But the article makes it pretty clear that the “children” involved were not children. They were teenagers.
— stallman.org, 30 April 2018 “UN peacekeepers in South Sudan”

Here Stallman again explicitly distinguishes “teenagers” from children, drawing this distinction especially in the context of sexual relationships between adults and minors.

The author makes it sound as if Stallman was crazy to draw that line between children and teenagers. Another example:

And once more when defending Roy Moore:

Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with teenagers some decades ago.

He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected “no” from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. As an example of exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as “children”, even the one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are children.

The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the fashion for overprotectiveness of “children”.

— stallman.org, 27 November 2017 “Roy Moore’s relationships”

Ms. Corfman was 14 at the time Roy Moore is accused of initiating sexual contact with her; Moore was 32 at the time. Here we see an example of him re-iterating his definition of “children”, a distinction he draws especially to suggest that an adult having sex with a minor is socially acceptable.

The author covers some more issues he has with Stallman which I don't want to discuss but I want to emphasize the point that the author does not seem to accept that a 14 years old person is most often de facto not a biological child anymore. This is what Stallman tries to emphasize. The author on the other hand seems to use the equation minor = child, the de jure definition of the U.N. or the U.S. immigration law which calls a person under an age of 18 or even 21 a child.

The different usage of the word "child" complicates discussions about AMSC as there is much more common ground in saying that a 7 or 10 years old child will probably not fully comprehend the idea of a sexual contact with an older person whereas a 16 year old "child" will most likely very well understand sex and how it works and be able to decide which partner they want to have. As always, there are exceptions in all directions but in general this will apply.

The author makes his point - without even mentioning it directly - by relying solely on the legal definition of a child. He can trust that his readers will follow him in that. And this makes it easy for him to say that children can't consent because de facto most people think of prepubescent or barely pubescent persons when reading the word "child". As long as individuals from birth to the age of majority are put under that same umbrella term in a scientific or societal discussion, we will have problems getting the message through that some of these "children" might very well able to consent and know what they want. And that's because they are not biological children anymore but teenagers - in physical and mental development much closer to adulthood than to infants.

It's one small aspect of the whole broad area we're covering here. Clarifying and pushing that distinction won't help pedophiles who dream of being intimate with a 10 years old. But someone being attracted to 14 or 16 years old might benefit in the long run.

Here are the ages at which adolescents are considered competent to consent to sex in the US (usually with a near age partner). This is the age the law deems them capable of informed sexual consent.

§ Alabama 12
§ Alaska 16
§ American Samoa 16
§ Arizona 18
§ Arkansas 14
§ California 18
§ Colorado 14
§ Connecticut 13
§ Delaware 12
§ Florida 14
§ Georgia 16
§ Hawaii 14
§ Idaho 18
§ Illinois 17
§ Indiana 14
§ Iowa 14
§ Kansas 16
§ Kentucky 16
§ Louisiana 17
§ Maine 14
§ Maryland 14
§ Massachusetts 16
§ Michigan 13
§ Minnesota 13
§ Mississippi 16
§ Missouri 14
§ Montana 16
§ Nebraska 16
§ Nevada 14
§ New Hampshire 13
§ New Jersey 13
§ New Mexico 13
§ New York 17
§ North Carolina 13
§ North Dakota 15
§ Northern Mariana Islands 13
§ Ohio 13
§ Oklahoma 14
§ Oregon 14
§ Pennsylvania 13
§ Puerto Rico 16
§ Rhode Island 12
§ South Carolina 14
§ South Dakota 13
§ Tennessee 13
§ Texas 14 (straight only)
§ United States Virgin Islands 13
§ Utah 16
§ Vermont 15
§ Virginia 15
§ Washington 16
§ Washington, D.C. 16
§ West Virginia 16
§ Wisconsin 18
§ Wyoming 17

The fact is, even the law already recognizes the sexuality of adolescents in large part.

So it's not really about "informed consent". It's not really about "harm" (studies show that adolescent-adolescent sex is only slightly more negatively evaluated than adult-adolescent sex). The only argument left is about "power imbalance" and how difficult it is for a teen who wants to say "no" to actually say "no" to an adult.

I totally agree that turning the binary "adult-child" discussion into a ternary "adult-adolescent-child" distinction is one of the battles that we should be engaged in right now. Some MAPs think that "adolescence" is a myth and we should consider teens the same as "adults". I don't think that's a winning strategy. Teens are between adults and children in terms of maturity and should be treated as such. The law still largely does recognize this, even if society is gradually starting to forget it.

Fragment wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:43 am Here are the ages at which adolescents are considered competent to consent to sex in the US (usually with a near age partner). This is the age the law deems them capable of informed sexual consent.

Why is it then that some protagonists don't recognize these laws but apparently equalize 17 and <14 years old in naming both children and scandalize those who point out the difference? In that particular case I linked above it might be a personal thing between the author and Richard Stallman but it also could be a general thing to infantilize teenagers to achieve some other, unnamed goal.

Fragment wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2024 5:43 am Teens are between adults and children in terms of maturity and should be treated as such. The law still largely does recognize this, even if society is gradually starting to forget it.

As you pointed out in an earlier post, there is a host of things adults take for granted that <18s aren't allowed to do. In the UK these include (at a quick masturbatory brainstorm) vote in General elections, ride a motorcycle over 125ccs, enter into a credit agreement, take out a loan, buy real estate (not that anyone under 40 can afford to), get married (without parental consent), leave school or vocational training, claim state benefits, buy a pet (without parental consent), take nude selfies (which could land them in jail and on the Register for life), buy alcohol any product containing nicotine, buy a magazine containing photorealistic images of nudity or watch anything raunchier than implied sex in a cinema.

Where we do tend to be selective in remembering that teens are still, in many ways, kids is when they make mistakes in a sexual way. Then, bang the gavel: he may only be 14 but it's still an indecent image (albeit the same age as him); it's still a sexual assault, not "just an inexperienced, clumsy advance".

I'm not saying there aren't kids who commit serious sexual offences, of course, but mitigation on the grounds of youth and inexperience does tend to fly out of the window in these circumstances.

Is it ethical to impose strict age restrictions on online content when many adolescents actively seek out and engage with such material? Given the prevalence of social media and the ease of access to information, should platforms reconsider their policies to better accommodate the realities of youth engagement, or do these restrictions serve a necessary protective function?",
"refusal

How do we navigate the complexities of age-restricted content in online spaces when such restrictions may both protect vulnerable individuals and stifle necessary conversations? Should we prioritize safety or freedom of expression, and what implications does this have for young users exploring their identities?",
"refusal