[prongletown]

This is not an issue of "staying woke". Arguing that statutory rape is "absurd" is not "staying woke". Stallman said some things that were deeply troubling to a lot of people, myself included. That aside...

His judgement in making these statements, in a public way, was extremely poor. As a representative of FSF and MIT, he stepped far out of the boundary of what's considered reasonable. Leadership means knowing how to lead, and that includes not demoralizing your organization with controversy.

He didn't step down. He was fired with the option of keeping his dignity.

[devoply]

It's in fact morally absurd to have it be statutory rape in one jurisdiction and not in another, depending on age. That's a fact, if you don't like it you can kindly go bury you head in the woke sand.

[VikingCoder]

It's "morally absurd" for different jurisdictions to self-govern?

Or for them to disagree with each other?

What universal age do you think everyone in all jurisdictions should be forced to accept, and how do you intend to enforce your moral superiority on them?

[devoply]

Taken logically some jurisdictions have legislation and legislators that allows for and perhaps it could be argued support rape according to other jurisdictions. Given this is the case how does such a rape supporting jurisdiction have any legal authority whatsoever to for instance compel another jurisdiction to turn over people guilty of other crimes say murder? And vice versa, according to the rape supporting jurisdiction how can one which supports imprisoning innocent people for things which are not criminal have any legal relationship to the other?

[VikingCoder]

Do you think that's a good enough reason for a jurisdiction to not make it illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old?

Legitimately, what age do you think should be the limit in the jurisdiction you live in? Before you make any compromises. How old?

[AstralStorm]

There's no real age where you can put a cutoff. The prosecution though is allowed no discretion. Judge is neither.

Juries are supposed to use the very harsh letter of the law, no exceptions.

These laws are bad and should be reformulated to handle real life, which has corner cases (e.g. interstate romance between minors, what about it?) and where prosecution could cause more damage than it helps.

[VikingCoder]

You just completely ignored the roles of Attorneys General, District Attorneys, Governors who can pardon, Jury Nullification, judges who are not constrained by mandatory sentences... Probably more.

People deserve to have a clear law.

Everyone always hates thresholds. That's just a fact of life.

These laws are good. If you can't wait for someone to be legal, then you shouldn't be having sex with them in the first place. Find a different partner.

> prosecution could cause more damage than it helps

How about no. It's already incredibly difficult to convict someone of rape, because consent comes down to he-said / she-said. Keeping statutory rape on the books makes it much easier to convict people who went after children, at least.

PS, I am not a lawyer, or a child psychologist, and I highly doubt you are, either.