[flagged]
It was sort of a hippie/counterculture/futurist/Berkeley thing to let pedophiles openly operate and attack anyone as nosy lame perverts who would accuse them of being a problem, even after multiple arrests. See the Breendoggle.
For example I know Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre were involved.
Having known several victims of CSA and some of their abusers, I think many people would be surprised at the amount of effort and planning that goes into ensuring access to a pool of potential victims. Abstractly it's a supply chain problem and is treated as such by the abusers.
Most famously, Michel Foucault.
> Notably, the signatories did not include Michel Foucault,[6]: 16 Marguerite Duras, Hélène Cixous, or Xavière Gauthier [fr; sv], who all refused to sign the January petition.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petitions_against_age-o...
This was in defense of people arrested for sexual abuse of children 12-13.
"I said I've had many young affairs, [with those who were] 16, 17, or 18."
Still, it matters a bit to me, whether we are talking about consensual things or not. 16 year olds might be naive, but they are also not small children and usually capable of saying no. (Body language no, is also a no). So do those horror stories involve ignoring a "no" from Ginsberg towards a minor?
You can't generalize the ability to say no to 16 year olds. You also can't ignore the position of power a famous person might be in, or what grooming might have occurred (which is being alleged up thread). Morally, I hope this is obvious. Even legally, many jurisdictions have laws that recognize these nonviolent sexual offenses as illegal.
"You also can't ignore the position of power a famous person might be in"
And no, I don't. I am also not a fan of grownup men going after boys in general.
Still, I do see a difference in men going after 16 year or 8 year old boys and how they approached them.
"horror story" is pretty strong language and implies certain things to me.
Precise use of language matters. Case in point, I am at a unconventional gathering right now and things happened, that were communicated as rape... so people wanted to take drastic action quickly. What happened? A "tantra" teacher giving massages and "solving blockages" of young (adult) women in their genital areas.
So they said yes to a massage and "healing" in general, but never said no afterwards, they just didn't realized what was happening. They met later and shared their stories and then things came to light.
So, definitely sexual abuse, but rape?
Well their body was raped in a way as sexual things happened that they did not consent to. But the right term here is rather sexual abuse I believe. Because to me and most others, rape implies penetrating with the penis against their will. If you use the most strong word for everything, what word will you use for actual violent forced sex? That just creates confusion that can has drastic consequences.
(As it did, with people wanting to take drastic violent action assuming something way worse. In the end the guy was banished, but no criminal charges were brought up as that would have required the victims going to police which they didn't wanted to).
Agreed.
> If a 16 year old cannot say no to unwanted advances, I would say education failed him very much in the first place.
It's not a matter of education. Mature adults have trouble saying no (to all sorts of things) depending on the social situation, and the power relationship is a significant factor, which weighs against 16 year olds who not only have little power but are raised to trust and obey adults. Look at all the people who couldn't say 'no' to their institution supporting rapists. Consider adult female soldiers, for whom sexual assault is a relatively widespread problem (at least in the US military).
Otherwise please don't make such a claim about me.
The other person (and I) believe what you wrote whitewashes the issue. You obviously think it does not. There is nothing we can point to that would make you go “oh damn you’re right.“
Because I did not.
My whole point the whole time was and is, that there is a big difference to me between grown men going after 16 year olds and 8 year olds.
Is it the same to you?
Prepubescents do not have the physical sexual maturity that human beings should be attracted to. By definition. Being attracted to them shows a profound disturbance in normal brain function.
Being attracted to a 16 or 17 year old shows much, much less deviation from normal human sexual behaviour. Again, by definition. Going through puberty = becoming sexually mature. Now, notice how i said “being attracted to” not “hanging around the local school trying to pick up minors.” It’s illegal for a reason. Kids need to be protected from much older adults who know how to exploit and abuse them.
Just listen to them talk for a minute and you won't attracted to them. Even better, let them have a presentation about maths or some project they've done. You can sit there and attempt to keep a polite face and not cover your eyes. It doesn't matter how smart they are, at least usually: even the smarts ones are still kids and therefore completely crazy.
Bruh you're justifying statutory rape due to a highly unjust power imbalance.
Also have you met a 16-year-old in real life? They are children.
The post above where I replied literally said: "young male children"
But are 16 year olds really "young male children"?
I don't think so, but stating it like this makes it a much, much worse accusation against Ginsberg in my eyes.
(and you seem to not factor in that many statutory rape laws have age gap determinants)
But I see that you are different.
With the benefit of being quite a bit older I’m increasingly struck by just how young and frankly childlike teens are. The age of consent isn’t perfect, it’s a compromise and an exercise in drawing lines, but that doesn’t make it worthless or indicate that you should “well actually” people who are abusing them.
Why not read Virginia Giuffre’s book about her experiences for more insight into something you should frankly listen and learn about a lot more before you lecture.
The original claim was, Ginsberg went after "young male children".
Sounds very, very bad.
Wikipedia said so far the youngest was 16.
Still bad, but not as bad in my opinion. So, to form my opinion after the initial accusation I requested more information.
Nothing more, nothing less. It is not all the same to me.
Then what are we debating? Should we debate if 3 murders is as bad as 5 murders while we’re at it? Or if stabbing someone to death is better/worse than shooting someone to death?
You’re treating this like some cold academic exercise or game of “what if” when it is a very real thing that happens to people literally every day. We are talking about a person who actually did this - an act that you yourself consider “bad.”
Missunderstandings it seems. My goal was to find out what exactly he did.
"We are talking about a person who actually did this"
Because I still don't know what he did exactly. To me approaching a 16 year old is in a very different ballpark than approaching 8 year olds, but if it is the same to you, we should indeed stop right here.
As for your question in the other comment chain: Whitewashing/downplaying =/= justifying. We didn’t say you “justified” it. Though neither is a great look.
Have a good one dude. I’ve stomached all I can of this thread.
"Bruh you're justifying statutory rape"
??
Also ..
"You are really going to regret having this comment history one day I guarantee it."
.. was that a threat? In case people like you take the power?
Anyway, I do recommend to reread what I wrote in a non engaged state of mind one day.
Different person in a different comment chain. Not me or the other person on this one.
That strikes me as remarkable, given that it’s arguably the most famously flammable topic short of intrareligious conflict.
I underestimated how quickly people even here will engage in dishonest tactics like this. Anyone requesting fair trial for the witch is automatically a witch itself that should be burned as well.
That is not a climate where you can find out truth, but activly preventing it through invoking fear.
The fact that Ginsberg was involved with NAMBLA is creepy enough for me, to not wanting to engage with his works btw. and I did not so much defended him, but the concept that 16 year olds are not small children anymore. Still children, yes, but not "young children". There are 16 year olds who started a family already. Not ideal, sure, but putting all those in the same bucket as 8 year olds?
Unless you're OK with 16 year olds having sex with 50 year olds who have been given access to them because of their fame an accolades, as well as personal connections?
As in literally no age of consent.