Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

> he says that an enslaved child could, somehow, be “entirely willing”.

I think the real problem is that the journalist lacks the moral vocabulary to explain why RMS and Minsky are both wrong, and must resort to nonsensical legalisms. Virginia Giuffre was 17 when this happened, making her, in the words of the author, “an enslaved child.” But according to sex-positive feminism a mere year later she could’ve be an empowered sex worker. Under that logic, whether Minsky could tell the difference between those is dispositive of his moral culpability. And of course that’s ridiculous.

The real explanation is that a 17 year old is a child and cannot meaningfully consent to sex with a 73 year old man. Nor can an 18 year old. Or a 21 year old. It’s inherently coercive and wrong. And Minsky sure as hell knew that Giuffre was young and not on equal footing with himself.

View on HN

I'm with you til the last paragraph.

Why does the age of consent just keep going up? How long before we have laws regulating age gaps for full grown adults? At what age does a person get entrusted by the All Knowing Democratic State to make all their own personal decisions for themselves?

Maybe the real explanation is that the age is arbitrary, a 17 year old is most likely as capable as an 18 year old of making these decisions, is not a child, and that the word "coercion" here applies because she was isolated on an island by someone who traffics in human beings for the express purpose of trafficking her. Of course this position is unfashionable, but it has the miraculous benefit of identifying it as enslavement even if the woman had been 50, as well as allowing people to make their own personal decisions without infantilizing them.

> Why does the age of consent just keep going up?

Human brains aren’t fully developed until the mid-20s. Historically, people got married and had sex long before that, but those relationships were arranged by family that at least in theory was supposed to make good decisions for the young person. As society has moved to an individualistic model, where adults are taken out of the loop, it makes sense that the age of consent would go up.

> Maybe the real explanation is that the age is arbitrary, a 17 year old is most likely as capable as an 18 year old of making these decisions, is not a child, and that the word "coercion" here applies because she was isolated on an island by someone who traffics in human beings for the express purpose of trafficking her.

That doesn’t address the author’s apparent view that Minsky is morally culpable and so is RMS by defending him. You can disagree with that view, but it’s worth trying to understand why many people would think Minsky did something wrong whether or not he knew about Giuffre’s specific situation.

Also, your logic is circular. “Trafficking” is a legal term that applies here because the women were under 18.

By this reasoning a 21-year old also cannot consent to sex with another 21-year old, or indeed, can consent to anything else. You're correct that human brains aren't fully developed until the age of 25 or so, but that doesn't mean humans are blubbering morons who can't consent to anything before that age.

Also it's not at all established that anything actually happened with Minsky; from the testimony it's only clear that she "was directed" to have sex with Minsky, but not that any sexual activity took place. Given that she was clear about this in other cases, it seems that nothing happened.

No, "trafficking" is a legal term that means people were unlawfully coerced into work.

I don't just disagree with the view, it is on its face disingenuous.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sex_trafficking

“Section 1591 covers sex trafficking for both children and adults. This provision, however, applies to trafficking in adults aged 18 or older for commercial sex acts only if done by actual or threatened force, fraud, or coercion. The use of force, fraud, or coercion is not necessary for criminal liability to attach when the victim is under 18 years of age.”

“Coercion” is defined to mean threats of physical harm or physical restraint, or threats of abuse of legal process.

Epstein was charged with sex trafficking of minors, so the government didn’t need to prove the “force, fraud, or coercion” element. For her part, Giuffre’s primary allegation is that she was “groomed” while she was underage.

Is it established that Minsky did, in fact, have sex with Giuffre? She said so in her deposition, and said it would have been on the island. But Minsky's wife said that was impossible because they were always together.

She said Epstein "directed her" to have sex with Minsky, but if I'm reading this right she didn't say she actually did have sex with him; copying from Wikipedia: "Virginia Giuffre testified in a 2015 deposition in her defamation lawsuit against Epstein's associate Ghislaine Maxwell that Maxwell "directed" her to have sex with Minsky among others. There has been no allegation that sex between them took place nor a lawsuit against Minsky's estate. Minsky's widow, Gloria Rudisch, says that he could not have had sex with any of the women at Epstein's residences, as they were always together during all of the visits to Epstein's residences."

In [1] it says "she was forced to have sex with MIT professor Marvin Minsky", but if you read the actual records that's based on then it's very vague and unclear if she was only "directed" and it never happened, or if it did.

This makes it quite different from Prince Andrew for example, where she stated she did have sex with him in clear terms.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/9/20798900/marvin-minsky-jef...

> a 17 year old is a child and cannot meaningfully consent

Careful with broad assumptions.

That's not true in most European countries, for example.

> And Minsky sure as hell knew that Giuffre was young and not on equal footing with himself.

So what?

Madonna is only dating guys that are at least 30 years younger than she is.

Anyway, sex between Minsky and Giuffre was never proved and, most of all, what Stallman said has nothing to do with it, he simply said that if someone send a girl to have sex with you, she's gonna act as willing and will probably lie about her age. Ans that it is pretty ridiculous that at 17 years + 364 days you're considered a child, but they day after you are free to become a sex worker. People should not jump from being kids to adulthood just because the law says so, they should go through different phases of increasing responsibilities and agency.

At my age it's difficult for me to tell 17 years old people and 27 years old people apart They look the same to me. A few times I've asked aren't you too young to drink/smoke? and they were over 25 and got pretty offended by my question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com