Men Are Waiting to Share Some Feelings (2018)

Wikipedia is terrible when it talks about English law.

It gets the UK entry pretty seriously wrong. The age of consent is 16, unless one of the people is in a position of authority over the other (where authority is defined in law and covers things like teachers) when it's 18; prostitution is legal in England but definitely not if the person is under 18.

> Any person who engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age 16 could be prosecuted. However this therefore means that even sexual intercourse between willing people of a similar age (i.e. A 16 year old and a 15 year old) could result in the older person being liable for prosecution for committing a sexual offence. Because of this, when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was created, separate sections of the act were put in place to be used on how to appropriately prosecute a person who had sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16, depending on exactly how young a person under the age of 16 was at time the sexual intercourse took place. This therefore maintained a "two-tier" cut off age system regarding sexual intercourse when it involved a person under the age of 16. Currently this depends on whether a younger person was Under 16 or Under 13 at the time of the sexual intercourse taking place, with the latter being automatically overall illegal, and the former still being illegal, but with defences due to the younger person's older age, more flexibility in sentencing and flexibility overall whether to prosecute or not based on individual case

This is incorrect.

The different ages exist in law because too many abusing men were claiming that they honestly thought that the 12 year old they had abused was a willing 16 year old.

The law removes this dishonest defence by adding this 13 year limit. We want the law to adequately capture the seriousness of the offence of rape of a child.

The reason we don't prosecute 15 year olds who have sex with each other has nothing to do with this two-step age limit: it is because our crown prosecution service has to ask two questions: "Is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction?" and "is it in the public interest to prosecute?". It's not in the public interest to prosecute children for having sex with each other so long as there's no element of coercion or force.

The CPS guidance to prosecuting sexual offences is here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offenc...

> The overriding public concern is to protect children. It was not Parliament's intention to punish children unnecessarily or for the criminal law to intervene where it is wholly inappropriate. During the passage of the bill, Lord Falconer said:

> "Our overriding concern is to protect children, not to punish them unnecessarily. Where sexual relationships between minors are not abusive, prosecuting either or both children is highly unlikely to be in the public interest. Nor would it be in the best interests of the child ..."

The guidance on youth offenders contains more detailed descriptions: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/youth-offenders

Vulnerability is being strong and weak at the same time. It's having the strength to know what the end goal is and not get distracted by emotional hurdles while being weak in submitting to authority and peers.

The easiest example of vulnerability I can think of is leaders from other departments asking my opinion on work processes or product ideas. One could argue that's not weakness but I believe it is, in that leaders who believe themselves above everyone else at the company will make policy and standards that ignore important aspects of product development and delivery.

An example of weakness is confessing personal issues to your manager or a peer, so much so they think less of you but generally don't tell you directly. The "vulnerable" version of that is handling your issues as you see them, asking peers and mentors for comments on your work and how you can improve, and simply not talking about them outside that.

I'll admit part of my judgment is shaded by personal bias from my own weaknesses, but that's how I see it.

1. Humans aren't some exception to reality.

2. Beauty can exist in harsh realities.

In this particular case, I'm not sure if it would have made a difference in the end (him resigning). But had he shared his feelings adequately, I suspect a lot more people would be defending him now than they are. Had he shown empathy towards the trafficked woman, while still presenting the very view he did have, it would have been more challenging to attack him.

Is it crappy that you can't express your views without showing empathy and then be judged for it? Definitely. But this is nothing new, and not unique to our age. Wishing for things to be different is wishing for humans to be otherwise.

Is it crappy that in an academic setting one cannot discuss things objectively without invoking feelings and get burnt because of it? Yes. But this wasn't that situation. One side was very clearly not having an academic conversation, but a very emotionally loaded one (protesting). It was Stallman's mistake in treating that situation like any other academic one.

Demonstrating empathy[1] is a key aspect of a relationship. Validating someone's feelings (without agreeing with their narrative) is central to demonstrating empathy. Unfortunately, the common mistake people make is assuming that validating one's feelings means you agree with the story in their heads - it doesn't.

I would often be upset with the way the world was. My having a discussion about X doesn't mean I agree with X or advocate for it. Yet people may view me as a horrible person for it. I'm just trying to have an academic discussion, and exploring ideas, damn it! Isn't that what fiction does? Etc.

But once I learned the dynamics behind all this, I couldn't help and look back at my earlier life and realize I did not behave all that different. Indeed it was easy to find examples where I listened more to one side because of their behavior (showed empathy, discussed instead of debated, etc). It wasn't that I didn't weigh different perspectives objectively - it was that I didn't listen as much to one side as the other. And I've realized I haven't met anyone who is perfect at dispassionately looking at all sides regardless of who is advocating for them. Understanding the factors that go into play will make you better at being able to listen to all sides so you can evaluate them objectively.

Showing empathy with the person whose view you find offensive/wrong is going to make it easier for you to understand their perspective and not let your own emotions get in the way. It will help the other person not be defensive, sarcastic, etc. These are things that bring about strong emotions and eliminating them from the other will help them explain their perspective better.

So yes, it does suck - but it's the same type of suckiness as the existence of bacterial diseases or the fact that I'll starve if I don't eat. Dwelling on it is futile.

[0] Note I said demonstrating empathy, not feeling or having empathy. I don't doubt Stallman has empathy for the trafficked person. Sadly, it's not what you know but what you can show.

Before people had a firm idea of homosexuality, men did show affection for other men as well.

It went like this: it is ok to hold hands with a man (because no one will think you are gay/because no one thinks anyone is gay) -> it is not ok to hold hands (because people will think you are gay) -> it is ok to hold hands (because it would not be a problem if you were gay)

and the last step is still ongoing...