He’s right that we shouldn’t infantilise teenagers by calling them ‘children’, lumping them in with prepubescent children as if there’s no difference between them.
Sorry but by the article linked above, he whatabouts rape of teenagers with “but they were not children”. He may have done a lot of good for free software, but this is not a single poorly worded comment - these kinds of statements can be found by the dozen. And that means he is mentally unwell / mentally damaged to consider them acceptable.
If I recall he was more hung up on the consent part, because he was probably a black and white logic thinker. If Teen consent, therefore OK. I think later he made a statement that he had re-thought it, after people argued that a teen saying yes is not consent because they can’t legally consent.
I only read the linked summary, and I was referring to a quote where he explicitly referenced rape in a civil war scenario, that’s not a word I made up for something consensual with a teenager.
I think later he made a statement that he had re-thought it
afaict only thing he’s re-thought is this:
Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
But as that blog post points out:
This statement from Stallman has been accepted by his defenders as evidence of his capitulation on pedophilia. I argue that this statement is misleading due to the particular way Stallman uses the word “child”. When Stallman uses this word, he does so with a very specific meaning, which he explains on his website:
Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become adolescents or teenagers. Let’s resist the practice of infantilizing teenagers, by not calling them “children”.
It seems clear from this definition is that Stallman’s comments are not a capitulation at all. His 2019 retraction, when interpreted using his definition of “children”, does not contradict most of Stallman’s past statements regarding sex and minors, including his widely criticized defenses of many people accused of sexual impropriety with minors.
As much as people fucking hate when this line gets rolled out and for good reason.
There’s a reason chronophilia is a term. Infantophilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, teleiopholia, mesophilia and gerontophilia. Are all different things.
Actually properly respecting, and using correct terminology can and should be a thing as it prevents unreasonable harm in instances where things are perfectly fine.
For example a 18 year old ephebophile. That’s fucking normal, even tho in the eyes of the law it’s punished as a sex crime. A 18 year old and a 17 year old with a 6 month gap gets fucked because we don’t actually take into account logic when it comes to this topic.
So that 18 year old is now a “pedophile” a term with horrid implications and life defining punishments legally and socially just because we all refuse to actually educate ourselves of the terminology and actual research on the topic.
Because the word pedo has such a huge social negative (for good reason) that we basically just all collectively go stupid as fuck and go straight to the worse punishment we can with out ever considering logic.
It also makes further research into the topic absurdly hard to do and secure funding for. Because of the massive social problems with attaching your name to such research.
Cause even researching it can result in you being attacked. There’s been a number of instances iv seen where research on the topic dead ends because no one is willing to actually attach their name to the subject. Or when something gets published it gets dragged through the mud because it’s a easy headline.
So we never actually find healthy and effective methods to deal with the problem. We just attack, mislabel, don’t think and cause more harm by not actually trying to deal with it. Because the problem is “icky”.
He’s right that we shouldn’t infantilise teenagers by calling them ‘children’, lumping them in with prepubescent children as if there’s no difference between them.
Sorry but by the article linked above, he whatabouts rape of teenagers with “but they were not children”. He may have done a lot of good for free software, but this is not a single poorly worded comment - these kinds of statements can be found by the dozen. And that means he is mentally unwell / mentally damaged to consider them acceptable.
If I recall he was more hung up on the consent part, because he was probably a black and white logic thinker. If Teen consent, therefore OK. I think later he made a statement that he had re-thought it, after people argued that a teen saying yes is not consent because they can’t legally consent.
I only read the linked summary, and I was referring to a quote where he explicitly referenced rape in a civil war scenario, that’s not a word I made up for something consensual with a teenager.
afaict only thing he’s re-thought is this:
But as that blog post points out:
As much as people fucking hate when this line gets rolled out and for good reason.
There’s a reason chronophilia is a term. Infantophilia, pedophilia, hebephilia, ephebophilia, teleiopholia, mesophilia and gerontophilia. Are all different things.
Actually properly respecting, and using correct terminology can and should be a thing as it prevents unreasonable harm in instances where things are perfectly fine.
For example a 18 year old ephebophile. That’s fucking normal, even tho in the eyes of the law it’s punished as a sex crime. A 18 year old and a 17 year old with a 6 month gap gets fucked because we don’t actually take into account logic when it comes to this topic.
So that 18 year old is now a “pedophile” a term with horrid implications and life defining punishments legally and socially just because we all refuse to actually educate ourselves of the terminology and actual research on the topic.
Because the word pedo has such a huge social negative (for good reason) that we basically just all collectively go stupid as fuck and go straight to the worse punishment we can with out ever considering logic.
It also makes further research into the topic absurdly hard to do and secure funding for. Because of the massive social problems with attaching your name to such research.
Cause even researching it can result in you being attacked. There’s been a number of instances iv seen where research on the topic dead ends because no one is willing to actually attach their name to the subject. Or when something gets published it gets dragged through the mud because it’s a easy headline.
So we never actually find healthy and effective methods to deal with the problem. We just attack, mislabel, don’t think and cause more harm by not actually trying to deal with it. Because the problem is “icky”.
At least in my neck of the woods there’s a pre-16, 16-18 and 18+ band, so a 17/18 couple wouldn’t be straight up criminalal.