He said age "17 or 18" is a minor detail, which from my perspective, coming from a country which has an age of consent under both, I agree.

I don't understand what he means by that. If there is an age of consent, then some people will be under it by a year. What is the alternative? In your country, there are also people a year under the age of consent. Whether not someone is above the age of consent cannot possibly be considered a "minor detail" in determining whether or not they consented.

Put it this way a member of the Norwegian government has been widely reported to have had sex with a drunk 17 year old (I am not certain whether the reports are true since the teenager has declined to comment). If the age of consent were 18 then the minister would have been investigated by the police. Since it is 16 the minister continues to serve in the government without stigma. Big difference in outcomes but the teenager is the same age.

Of course there has to be a cutoff. 16 seems reasonable to me. But I would not have sex with any teenager.

>Of course there has to be a cutoff.

In which case the difference between $AGE and $AGE-1 is not a "minor detail".

Legally speaking no it is not. Morally speaking yes it can be (depending on many factors).

Some legal systems attempt to account for this. E.g. England and Wales have two key ages. Having sex with someone under 16 might be (to use US terms) rape or statutory rape depending on whether the person under 16 consented. Both are illegal but rape more so. Having sex with someone under 13 is always rape since children under 13 are not considered able to consent. But in some cases 16 is not the cutoff if e.g. a teacher has sex with a pupil under 18 this is also always illegal. On the other hand if the defendant genuinely did not know the chief witness was under 16 and there was consent this is a defense.

RMS was objecting to the legal definition of rape (hence the reference to it varying between countries). But if you want to switch to the moral issue, then that’s even more black and white. Is it ok for a 70 year old man in a position of power to (hypothetically) have sex with a 17 year old girl? Erm, no. Can sex in such circumstances be fully consensual? No, it can’t. So if your suggestion is that RMS was making some kind of defensible moral argument, I can’t imagine what it might be.

I happen to be English so I’m familiar with the laws in England. I don’t see how any of that is relevant. The English law has cutoffs of exactly the same kind (it’s just that the relevant age threshold is usually 16 rather than 18). Obviously, no-one thinks that any such threshold can be completely non-arbitrary. It is just as "morally absurd" for sex between two 16 year olds to be legal and sex between a 16 year old and a 15 year old to be illegal. But unless - like RMS - you fail to recognize that age is a factor in consent, you have to make a cut somewhere. Apparently, from RMS's point of view, the most troubling feature of such laws is that they may prevent 70 year old Profs screwing 17 year old girls.

> it ok for a 70 year old man in a position of power to (hypothetically) have sex with a 17 year old girl. Erm, no. Can sex in such circumstances be fully consensual? No, it can’t

I provided an example with a government minister in Norway already... The minister in question remains in the government (the allegations are unproven but would easily be enough to destroy a British politician). Clearly two very similar western countries have very different moral stances on sex between consenting adults!

With regards most of the rest of your post we are largely in agreement.

Except regarding your misunderstanding of RMS's position. I invite you to read what he wrote yourself and revert if you think that is what he actually meant to say! Or to edit your post.

We're both discussing what he wrote.

Terje Søviknes seems the closest match to your description. For an adult in a position of power to get a 16 year old drunk and then have sex with them is obviously wrong. It's certainly caused a scandal in Norway: https://exepose.com/2018/02/15/endless-sex-scandals-in-norwe...

You apparently regard the case as one involving "consenting adults", even though you describe the girl as drunk! It does seem that at bottom, the tiny minority of people who think they've found a morally defensible interpretation of RMS's comments are the people who are basically ok with adult men sexually exploiting teenage girls. Or at least, who think it's very important to sharply distinguish these people from "real" rapists.

I assume that the politician you are referring to remains in power because the allegations are (you say) unproven.

> We're both discussing what he wrote.

I'm not prepared to discus that further with you until you can justify or retract your libelous interpretation.

As for the government minister that is not the one in question. I found the one involving Trine Skei Grande far more comparable https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/a2Wp1M/han-var-17-skei.... Even so you will note that the minister you mention can continue to serve as an MP.

What made you pick out the Terje Søviknes case over the Trine Grande case?

So many to choose from! You didn't give a name, and I can't read your mind.

I said explicitly that the minister in question remained in government, that the teenager in question was 17 and that there was no suggestion of coercion. There was no need to even name names these facts stand on their own.