Convicted in the US of something that is not in crime in much of the world. You are conflating US law with ethics/morals.

You are also appealing to emotion by using 'children' and 'pedophile' in inaccurate ways. If you are going to strictly interpret 'statutory rape' as being morally reprehensible regardless of the circumstances, then I would ask that you stop using peodphile unless you can show me one of his victims that was pre-pubescent. I didn't define that word, it has a dictionary and wikipedia entry that you are welcome to read.

And regarding your claim about emotional and mental development, I would agree that it IS true what you say. However, there are plenty of people who've made it to older age who lack the maturity of their juniors (Stallman apparently being an example!). Age should NEVER be a surrogate marker of capacity... we define ages of legal consent arbitrarily, agreed? There are plenty of 22 year olds making bad decisions...

And the self-righteous political agenda was referring to this legislation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_...

Plenty of groups including the EFF think this went too far and the way that people throw around 'sex trafficking' and 'raping children' and 'pedophile' are emotional appeals that do a disservice to the actual victims of these crimes.

Of course all of these things are bad, but was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker because he kept a well-paid harem of women at his mansion? If age is the only discriminator, then why is the US your moral compass when clearly age of consent differs throughout the world? What about Romeo and Juliet laws? States like Hawaii where age of consent is lower?.

> why is the US your moral compass when clearly the age of consent differs throughout the world?

Because the question is not “is it moral”, because the answer is obviously no to any decent person, regardless of age of consent. He used women to gift sex to his friends in an exploitive manner; find me an ethical theorist who supports that. You said yourself in the earlier post that his actions put “his morals/character...in question” and I agree. I also agree that his actions are illegal. As he was convicted and sentenced to a U.S. prison in 2008 and charged this last time and put into a federal jail, I’d say the U.S.’s laws are fairly relevant. No man-made law is identical to a divine law, this is true, but I think the man upstairs would be disgusted by nations allowing child marriages or ages of consent under or at 16. Hell, Satan probably feels uncomfortable, or the Flying Burrito, or just your conscience. But going from the sentiments on this thread, though, I’m sure you could start a group of like-minded people to campaign to lower the age of consent. I can think of a senatorial candidate or two who’d back you all up. The fact remains though, he committed a crime, and I’m sure a majority of Americans (the country in which he was prosecuted) would agree that he is morally reprehensible as well. But hey, it’s hard to decide on ethical question like: “should adults be allowed to sexually use children”. I’ll give you that one.

> was Hugh Hefner a sex trafficker

If he transported underage girls for purposes of sex to a private island, then yes. Oh wait, that’s what Epstein did. The women Hefner kept, as far as I know, were not underage, but if they were and if they were treated as products to be used and sold/gifted for sex, then yes, he would be, as is Epstein.

> You are also appealing to emotion by using ‘pedophile’

Pedophilia has formal and colloquial definitions. While yes, you are correct, many dictionaries do qualify with pre-pubescence, but one of the most popular online dictionaries, dictionary.com, states [1] ‘sexual desire in an adult for a child’. I would argue that the real, not formal usage of pedophile is not so restrictive on the question of puberty. Since English has no standard bodies and words’ meaning is determined by usage, I would consider my use of ‘pedophilia’ semantically correct. But hey, substitute every instance of ‘pedophilia’ with ‘Ephebophilia’ if you want; most Americans would still be disgusted by it under this name, too. Even wikipedia [2] says, though, that pedophilia is commonly used to refer to interest in teens past puberty, so I stand by my apparently loaded vocabulary (is teen-sex-connesieur better?) [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pedophilia [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia see bottom of paragraph 2

Well, if you want to use Ephebophilia, you need to establish primary sexual preference, not simply sexual interest. Setting that aside, however...

You talk about colloquial definitions, but colloquial definitions vary. When you say "pedophile", I indeed think of sexual desire in an adult for a child (usually preferential desire, but I suppose it doesn't have to be such). However, "child" in this context (as well as most others) refers to a pre-pubescent minor. So, when you say "pedophile", it conjures up imagery of some middle-aged adult and some 10-year old (or perhaps younger!). Same goes for terms like "child sex-trafficking" and "child pornography" --- these all conjure up images of pre-pubescent children for me. Given the reactions by various people on HN (and indeed my perception of the views of people in my bubble of the world), I don't seem to be alone in this.

Teen-sex-connesieur is ridiculous; I don't think anyone would actually suggest that. But the words you are using carry connotations for many, that you don't seem to be expecting. If these connotations do not match what you are trying to communicate, you might consider some adjustment to your language. Perhaps "teen" "underage" or "minor" would be more suitable words here (I would lean towards the first or second, personally).

---

P.S. And yes, while I do see a difference between a 25 year old and a 16 year old in terms of sexual maturity, I also see a dramatic difference between adult interest in a 16 year old and adult interest in an 8 year old. So I don't think "pedophilia" is a good blanket term to describe adult sexual interest in individuals below the age of 18.

> Because the question is not “is it moral”, because the answer is obviously no to any decent person, regardless of age of consent.

Judging by the amount of ahem, activity, between high-schoolers, we are literally surrounded by the immoral. /s

Indeed, sex between minors is clearly the exact same situation as sex between minors and older rich men gifting them as sex objects. /s

Funny that you would single out Denmark when it had age of consent set at 12 when most of the US had it at 10 or even as low as 7 for Delaware[1].

Many 'developed' countries had age of consent set at 12 until recently (for example Spain raised it to 13 in 1999 then to 16 in 2015).

By your comment all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles, when it's actually a matter of the legal and moral compass and context evolving with time.

I'd argue that we should have a look at what happened in the last 2 centuries in our societies because caring for our children is clearly not the reason here or else we would have done something 40 years ago about the climate, pollution, smoking, fast food, access to water and food, lack of sustainable way of life, teaching them skills we collectively had 100-150 years ago and countless others things that are making sure they will have no future and suffer horribly in the process of experiencing the global collapse.

[1]: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primary...

> all societies before the late 19th were just a bunch of rapists and pedophiles

I mean, yes? Not sure what you’re getting at. I understand that social norms change over time and remain relative, but if a man in a society of any time period married 7-year-olds or barely teens, then they were morally wrong, even if they were clueless as to the wrongness. I’d hoped this was obvious, but apparently many people on HN have no concept of ethics and see absolutely (ironically) everything as relative.

Think about what you are saying - that given the correct historical context, you would have no qualms with child marriage? That’s not just a lack of a moral compass, that’s a psychopathic perspective.

It's just moral relativism. While not usually the most popular of philosophical schools of though, it's hardly new, either. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

But, fine, let us suppose that morality is objective --- we can even go so far as to say that it is entirely so, and not at all a moving target. That doesn't necessarily mean that your moral compass, or even the compass of society at any given time, is correct --- even if you strongly feel that it should be. Ethics involves the careful and systematic study and consideration of morality. Words like "obvious" don't really have a place in ethics.

In the Massachusetts of MIT, Harvard, & Martha's Vineyard, the age of consent is 16.

So while coerced sex, or prostitution, remains illegal there no matter the age, mere consensual sex with a 16-17 year-old is NOT "statutory rape" in Massachusetts. Not in that "blue" state, nor the 30 other U.S. states with the same age-of-consent, nor in Canada. Sleazy for those much older, sure, but not the "statutory rape" you're claiming.

But at least one 14-year-old was involved in his case, which lead to his initial imprisonment in 2008. Doubtlessly many of the girls in his employ were 14 or 15. And remember, he wasn’t always in MA. He was a serial exploiter of underage girls, and acquiescence doesn’t mean consent if Epstein held power/influence over the teenage girls.

Yes, some allegations against Epstein himself on other occasions include girls who appeared as young, by witnesses' estimations, as 11-12.

But the specific allegation against Massachusetts-based Minsky involved a woman who 1st met Epstein at age 16, and may not have met Minsky until she was 17.

But surely most 35-year olds would say that they changed much less drastically from 25 to 35 than 16 to 25. I mean would you say it’s ok to have sex with 12 year olds since they “never stop maturing” and who’s to pick a number? I think we can pick a number: don’t have sex with people who are barely out of middle school. It doesn’t need to be scientifically verified; it is simply common decency. It is frankly disappointing that in 2019 this is a controversial statement at all.

As if 2019 was a model of how we should live, of ethics and morality. It is simple to point that 2019 is actually the opposite of a what we should do and very close to a model of what we should not do, especially if we care for our children and the future of living on the only planet we have.

In a society which on one hand is prudish and on the other oversexualizing everything as a marketing plot including young children, it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.

> it seems logical and expected to have this kind of issues.

Indeed, which is why we are discussing them. The resolution? Stop sexualizing teenage girls and pretending that they are anything other than children. That is my argument; call it prudish if you want.