Jan 13, 2016 12:00
carlsagan,
india,
music,
rape,
genetics,
programming,
economy,
death,
shares,
economics,
usa,
humans,
games,
debt,
organs,
comic,
radio,
sleep,
research,
copyright,
architecture,
links,
healthcare,
history,
ohforfuckssake,
miracleman,
consent,
uk,
graphics,
sheep,
impressive,
funny,
starwars,
comics,
epicfail,
design,
misogyny,
coincidence,
pigs,
internet,
age,
davidbowie,
egypt,
poverty,
england,
viaswampers,
politics
Because it's the most clear moral transgression. The law is not germane here, it's whether what he did was actually pretty messed up.
Everyone (apart from the genuinely morally repugnant) believes that there's an age at which you cannot consent to sex no matter how precocious you are. So I think if the girl was five, you'd probably have a rather different position even if she maintained it was consensual.
Now I don't know if the girl in question was thirteen or fifteen at the time (it seems there's several accounts) but even with enthusiastic consent that put it into the extremely morally dubious territory even considering autre temps autre mores.
So, really, what seems to me pretty fucked up here is your insistence that it's completely unproblematic that he had sex with a child because the child in question continued to say it was OK when she grew up.
She says she's completely OK with it and remains so. (In passing, believing someone when they say they have not been raped is quite definitely not the flip side of believing someone when they say they have -- you don't have to look too long at celebrity rape accusations to realise that you're letting yourself in for a lot of pain if you make such an accusation). Even if she is OK with it, that's a hell of a chance to take with someone so much younger and more vulnerable.
So, long and short, don't fuck children even if they're OK with it and even if you really believe that they'll remain OK with it and even if they do remain OK with it. It's not that complicated -- just don't do that.
Reply
Leave a comment