I've decided not to work with Aubrey de Grey or SENS

Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.

But that's really not the point, everything else you said is.

And just because it's legal doesn't mean that it's socially acceptable, for all those reasons.

To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is:

Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake"

He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way.

I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.

"In order to orient you"? "Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"?

Even if this is the watered-down, best-light scenario, this is very weird.

And then tries to use Laura's words against her- she previously dismisses it as an honest mistake and then changes her mind when presented with apparent new evidence. And somehow portrays this as them being deceived.

Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term. If one wanted to smear Aubrey de Grey, she-said-he-said creepiness is one of the least effective ways to do it because a wide swath of the population aren't bothered enough to affect someone's career over it-- the only reason consequences are newsworthy is because they're so uncommon.

The follow-up with "the very next day she wrote to me without the faintest hint of ambivalence, asking for additional feedback on her presentation" is also completely disingenuous. He's in a position of absolute power and SENS is writing her paychecks. If I had an argument with my wife and the next morning's text was "please pick up milk", that is not evidence that things are good between us.

Innocent until proven guilty is a trial standard. I doubt any of this will go to court, so we have to make up our minds based on what's available. He admits there's evidence he was hitting on a 17 year old and his rhetoric wouldn't convince me the sky is blue, on top of it being tone deaf. More women don't need to come forward and upheave their lives to try to bury this guy's career, he's digging his own grave.

Neither of the accusers allege anything terribly egregious. The premise of their post is that their experiences are part of a pattern, that there are many more victims and that some of de Grey's behavior goes beyond merely inappropriate.

The repsonse denies that pattern. It doesn't allege "brain-washing," just that the accusers have been misinformed. I would bet that his behavior is part of a pattern but it seems like a fine idea to wait and see.

We also are surrounded by people who are well meaning but make mistakes and our socialization prepares us to be forgiving of them. To give time for repair. Abusers use those social structures (consciously or unconsciously) to give themselves space to do what they like. It's a big move to fully separate yourself from someone, and abusers see that if they can make it more comfortable to simply live further away from them, that they can continue without changing or facing the damage they have caused.

I really encourage anyone who doesn't understand why assault or abuse reactions look this way to imagine what actions they might take if their current boss were to suddenly grab their genitals without warning or permission. There's an element of the personal violation that, I think, is difficult to appreciate - but the practicalities of addressing it are, I think, obvious once you start to imagine it. Who would you tell? What consequences would you suffer? How outlandish might you seem to peers, other managers, etc? Personal violations like this are deeply treacherous and the people who commit them take advantage of that fact to keep doing it.

I called inhuman being certain that you'll never randomly flirting with any young women you're working with, over many years. Not exactly what you're saying, is it?

Also for the record, most 17 years old are attractive. They're not dateable if you're older, not relationship material, illegal to have sex with in certain legislation, a bad idea to in most cases and so on. But attractive? Why wouldn't they be? Ah, because you called them "minors". I'm sorry for you, if you really live in that world.

Edit: should have probably used a less harsh tone. Sorry. I'll blame it on being misinterpreted so badly, but still.

Nah, you can mentor young women just fine. The key is to always follow the Mike Pence rule. No reason not to, given a professional context.