Human brains aren’t fully developed until the mid-20s. Historically, people got married and had sex long before that, but those relationships were arranged by family that at least in theory was supposed to make good decisions for the young person. As society has moved to an individualistic model, where adults are taken out of the loop, it makes sense that the age of consent would go up.
> Maybe the real explanation is that the age is arbitrary, a 17 year old is most likely as capable as an 18 year old of making these decisions, is not a child, and that the word "coercion" here applies because she was isolated on an island by someone who traffics in human beings for the express purpose of trafficking her.
That doesn’t address the author’s apparent view that Minsky is morally culpable and so is RMS by defending him. You can disagree with that view, but it’s worth trying to understand why many people would think Minsky did something wrong whether or not he knew about Giuffre’s specific situation.
Also, your logic is circular. “Trafficking” is a legal term that applies here because the women were under 18.
By this reasoning a 21-year old also cannot consent to sex with another 21-year old, or indeed, can consent to anything else. You're correct that human brains aren't fully developed until the age of 25 or so, but that doesn't mean humans are blubbering morons who can't consent to anything before that age.
Also it's not at all established that anything actually happened with Minsky; from the testimony it's only clear that she "was directed" to have sex with Minsky, but not that any sexual activity took place. Given that she was clear about this in other cases, it seems that nothing happened.
“Section 1591 covers sex trafficking for both children and adults. This provision, however, applies to trafficking in adults aged 18 or older for commercial sex acts only if done by actual or threatened force, fraud, or coercion. The use of force, fraud, or coercion is not necessary for criminal liability to attach when the victim is under 18 years of age.”
“Coercion” is defined to mean threats of physical harm or physical restraint, or threats of abuse of legal process.
Epstein was charged with sex trafficking of minors, so the government didn’t need to prove the “force, fraud, or coercion” element. For her part, Giuffre’s primary allegation is that she was “groomed” while she was underage.
Human brains aren’t fully developed until the mid-20s. Historically, people got married and had sex long before that, but those relationships were arranged by family that at least in theory was supposed to make good decisions for the young person. As society has moved to an individualistic model, where adults are taken out of the loop, it makes sense that the age of consent would go up.
> Maybe the real explanation is that the age is arbitrary, a 17 year old is most likely as capable as an 18 year old of making these decisions, is not a child, and that the word "coercion" here applies because she was isolated on an island by someone who traffics in human beings for the express purpose of trafficking her.
That doesn’t address the author’s apparent view that Minsky is morally culpable and so is RMS by defending him. You can disagree with that view, but it’s worth trying to understand why many people would think Minsky did something wrong whether or not he knew about Giuffre’s specific situation.
Also, your logic is circular. “Trafficking” is a legal term that applies here because the women were under 18.