[Shinkei]

Yet another person who throws around the word 'pedophile' in a very inaccurate way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

There is no evidence that he was a pedophile. In fact, many of the 'girls' he had relations with were by their own admission consensual and involved compensation.

He certainly broke the law in this country and his morals and character are in question, but what he did is (and has been throughout history) legal in much of the world and we can't act like US law is a surrogate for universal ethics/morals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

At some point we have to decide if girls/women have agency to decide their sexual activity. 25 year-olds can be coerced in asymmetric power relationships just like a 16 year-old. We already know about the double-standard of sex when drunk--if you are man, it's consensual, but if you are a woman, it's always rape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking

And as an aside, I think that the use of 'sex trafficking' in this context does a disservice to the actual, bonafide victims of sex trafficking--people that are kidnapped, passports confiscated, literally enslaved. Now because the term has been co-opted by a self-righteous political agenda, we can't have personals on Craigslist.

[csb6]

I am absolutely floored by your comment. I sincerely hope that it is parody.

Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting a prostitute and of procuring an underage girl for prostitution. He plead guilty and was convicted. How much more clear does this have to get? He is a pedophile. How could he not be? He straight up solicited children for sex and has had dozens of credible accusations by women stating that he sexually assaulted them while they were underage. In what planet does this kind of behavior count as okay, even if only a single accusation was true? He solicited a child for sex!

No matter what fucked up views of what is/isn’t pedophilia you have, surely you see how employing underage girls and encouraging them to have sex with adult guests is objectively bad and so justifiably illegal? I mean these are children. Them getting paid makes it no better. Would you be ok with your child being employed by an older man to have sex with rich friends of his? I wouldn’t. Am I just too “self-righteous” to see such employment as exploitive and inherently immoral/fucked up?

It doesn’t matter if it was consensual. It is statutory rape, and 16 year olds are not emotionally and mentally as developed as 22 year olds - no matter what you claim. Ask any 22-year-old woman if she is the same person emotionally/intellectually as when she was 16. How many would say yes? Not many.

If saying, “Hey, Epstein built a secret harem of underage girls and solicited them to adult men - regardless of the children’s consent to be solicited - is a bad thing” is considered a “self-righteous political agenda”, then I guess I’m a full-on self-righteous prick.

The fact that I’m arguing that systematic, coerced sex between rich adult men and underage girls is bad and condemnable and that a lot of people in this comment section would disagree with me makes me lose hope for this world. It should be obvious that statutory rape laws protect minors and are a good thing. But here we are. Something truly is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Shinkei]

Convicted in the US of something that is not in crime in much of the world. You are conflating US law with ethics/morals.

You are also appealing to emotion by using 'children' and 'pedophile' in inaccurate ways. If you are going to strictly interpret 'statutory rape' as being morally reprehensible regardless of the circumstances, then I would ask that you stop using peodphile unless you can show me one of his victims that was pre-pubescent. I didn't define that word, it has a dictionary and wikipedia entry that you are welcome to read.

And regarding your claim about emotional and mental development, I would agree that it IS true what you say. However, there are plenty of people who've made it to older age who lack the maturity of their juniors (Stallman apparently being an example!). Age should NEVER be a surrogate marker of capacity... we define ages of legal consent arbitrarily, agreed? There are plenty of 22 year olds making bad decisions...

And the self-righteous political agenda was referring to this legislation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...

Plenty of groups including the EFF think this went too far and the way that people throw around 'sex trafficking' and 'raping children' and 'pedophile' are emotional appeals that do a disservice to the actual victims of these crimes.

Of course all of these things are bad, but was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker because he kept a well-paid harem of women at his mansion? If age is the only discriminator, then why is the US your moral compass when clearly age of consent differs throughout the world? What about Romeo and Juliet laws? States like Hawaii where age of consent is lower?.

[bigbugbag]

Funny that you would single out Denmark when it had age of consent set at 12 when most of the US had it at 10 or even as low as 7 for Delaware[1].

Many 'developed' countries had age of consent set at 12 until recently (for example Spain raised it to 13 in 1999 then to 16 in 2015).

By your comment all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles, when it's actually a matter of the legal and moral compass and context evolving with time.

I'd argue that we should have a look at what happened in the last 2 centuries in our societies because caring for our children is clearly not the reason here or else we would have done something 40 years ago about the climate, pollution, smoking, fast food, access to water and food, lack of sustainable way of life, teaching them skills we collectively had 100-150 years ago and countless others things that are making sure they will have no future and suffer horribly in the process of experiencing the global collapse.

[1]: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...

[hncomment]

In the Massachusetts of MIT, Harvard, & Martha's Vineyard, the age of consent is 16.

So while coerced sex, or prostitution, remains illegal there no matter the age, mere consensual sex with a 16-17 year-old is NOT "statutory rape" in Massachusetts. Not in that "blue" state, nor the 30 other U.S. states with the same age-of-consent, nor in Canada. Sleazy for those much older, sure, but not the "statutory rape" you're claiming.

[luckylion]

> He is a pedophile. How could he not be?

I believe the confusion is that you're using "pedophile" to mean "attracted to anyone below the age of consent" while pedophile originally means "attracted to prepubescent children". In that regard, you're most certainly not a pedophile if you're attracted to a 17 year old that has gone through puberty. That's also what RMS was referring to if I recall his email correctly.

[ars]

> Ask any 22-year-old woman if she is the same person emotionally/intellectually as when she was 16. How many would say yes? Not many.

Ask any 35 year old the same question. You'll get the same answer. There is no bright line where people are mature.

You never stop maturing, not at 40, not at 75 either.

You just have to pick a number, but don't pretend there is any scientific basis to it.