drewdevault.com

2023-11-26-RMS-on-sex.md (28386B)

---
title: Richard Stallman's political discourse on sex
date: 2023-11-25
---
Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Foundation, has been subject
to numerous allegations of misconduct. He stepped down in 2019, and following
his re-instatement in 2021, a famous [open letter][0] was published in which
numerous organizations and individuals from throughout the Free Software
ecosystem called for his removal from the Free Software Foundation. The letter
had no effect; Stallman remains a voting member of the FSF's [board of
directors][1] to this day and continues to receive numerous [speaking
engagements][2].
*Content warning: This article discusses sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and all of the above with respect to minors, as well as the systemic
normalization of abuse, and directly quotes statements which participate in the
normalization of abuse.*
[0]: https://rms-open-letter.github.io/
[1]: https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board
[2]: https://stallman.org/talks.html
This article presents an analysis of Stallman's political discourse on sex with
the aim of establishing the patterns that cause the sort of discomfort that led
to Stallman's public condemnation. In particular, we will address how Stallman
speaks about sexual assault, harassment, consent, and minors in his discourse.
I think that it is important to acknowledge this behavior not as a series of
isolated incidents, nor a conflict with Stallman's "[personal style][style]",
but a pattern of behavior from which a political narrative forms, and draws
attention to the fact that the meager retractions, excuses, and non-apologies
from both Stallman and the Free Software Foundation as a whole fail to account
for that pattern in a meaningful way.
[style]: https://www.fsf.org/news/statement-of-fsf-board-on-election-of-richard-stallman
The failure of the Free Software community to account for Richard Stallman's
behavior has a chilling effect. The norms set by our leadership influence the
norms of our broader community, and many members of the Free Software community
look to Stallman as a ideological and political leader. The norms Stallman
endorses are harmful and deeply confronting and alienating to many people, in
particular women and children. Should these norms be adopted by our movement, we
risk creating a community which enables the exploitation of vulnerable people.
Let's begin to address this by considering Stallman's retraction of his comments
in support of pedophilia. The following comment from Stallman in 2013 drew harsh
criticism:
> There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing
> participation in pedophilia hurts children.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210325014249/https://stallman.org/archives/2012-nov-feb.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia)">stallman.org, 04 January 2013 "Pedophilia"</a></small>
Following much of the criticism directed at Stallman, he had a number of
"personal conversations" which reframed his views. Of the many comments Stallman
has made which drew ire, this is one of the few for which a correction was made,
in September 2019:
> Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between
> an adult and a child, if the child accepted it.
>
> Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how
> sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the
> matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations
> that enabled me to understand why. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210325015259/https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Sex_between_an_adult_and_a_child_is_wrong)">stallman.org, 14 September 2019 "Sex between an adult and a child is wrong"</a></small>
This statement from Stallman has been accepted by his defenders as evidence of
his capitulation on pedophilia. I argue that this statement is misleading due to
the particular way Stallman uses the word "child". When Stallman uses this word,
he does so with a very specific meaning, which he explains on his website:
> Children: Humans up to age 12 or 13 are children. After that, they become
> adolescents or teenagers. Let's resist the practice of infantilizing
> teenagers, by not calling them "children".
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/antiglossary.html">stallman.org, "Anti-glossary"</a></small>
It seems clear from this definition is that Stallman's comments are not a
capitulation at all. His 2019 retraction, when interpreted using his definition
of "children", does not contradict most of Stallman's past statements regarding
sex and minors, including his widely criticized defenses of many people accused
of sexual impropriety with minors.
Stallman's most recent direct response to his criticism underscores this:
> It was right for me to talk about the injustice to Minsky, but it was
> tone-deaf that I didn't acknowledge as context the injustice that Epstein did
> to women or the pain that caused.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.fsf.org/news/rms-addresses-the-free-software-community">fsf.org, April 12, 2021, "RMS addresses the free software community"</a></small>
Stallman qualifies his apology by explicitly re-affirming his defense of Marvin
Minsky, which is addressed in detail later in this piece. Stallman's
doubling-down here is consistent with the supposition that Stallman maintains
the view that minors can have sexual relationships with adults of any age,
provided that they aren't "children" -- in other words, provided they're at
least 13 or 14 years old.
Stallman cares deeply about language and its usage. His strange and deliberate
usage of the word "children" is also found many times throughout his political
notes over the years. For example:
> It sounds horrible: "UN peacekeepers accused of child rape in South Sudan."
> But the article makes it pretty clear that the "children" involved were not
> children. They were teenagers.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180509120046/https://stallman.org/archives/2018-mar-jun.html#30_April_2018_(UN_peacekeepers_in_South_Sudan)">stallman.org, 30 April 2018 "UN peacekeepers in South Sudan"</a></small>
Here Stallman again explicitly distinguishes "teenagers" from children, drawing
this distinction especially in the context of sexual relationships between
adults and minors. Stallman repeats this pattern many times over the years -- we
see it again in Stallman's widely criticized defense of Cody Wilson:
> Cody Wilson has been charged with hiring a "child" sex worker. Her age has
> not been announced, but I think she must surely be a teenager, not a child.
> Calling teenagers "children" in this context is a way of smearing people with
> normal sexual proclivities as "perverts".
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180924231708/https://stallman.org/archives/2018-jul-oct.html#23_September_2018_(Cody_Wilson)">stallman.org, 23 September 2018 "Cody Wilson"</a></small>
And once more when defending Roy Moore:
> Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to start dating/sexual relationships with
> teenagers some decades ago.
>
> He tried to lead Ms Corfman step by step into sex, but he always respected
> "no" from her and his other dates. Thus, Moore does not deserve the
> exaggerated condemnation that he is receiving for this. As an example of
> exaggeration: one mailing referred to these teenagers as "children", even the
> one that was 18 years old. Many teenagers are minors, but none of them are
> children. 
>
> The condemnation is surely sparked by the political motive of wanting to
> defeat Moore in the coming election, but it draws fuel from ageism and the
> fashion for overprotectiveness of "children". 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180104112431/https://www.stallman.org/archives/2017-nov-feb.html#27_November_2017_(Roy_Moore's_relationships)">stallman.org, 27 November 2017 "Roy Moore's relationships"</a></small>
Ms. Corfman was 14 at the time Roy Moore is accused of initiating sexual contact
with her; Moore was 32 at the time. Here we see an example of him re-iterating
his definition of "children", a distinction he draws especially to suggest that
an adult having sex with a minor is socially acceptable.
Note that Stallman refers to Ms. Corfman as Moore's "date". Stallman's use of
this word is important: here he normalizes the possibility that a minor and an
adult could engage in a healthy dating relationship. In this statement, Stallman
cites an article which explains circumstances which do not resemble such a
normalized dating experience: Moore isolated Corfman from her mother, drove her
directly to his home, and initiated sexual contact there.
Note also that the use of the phrase "step by step" in this quotation is more
commonly referred to as "grooming" in the discourse on child sexual
exploitation.
Stallman reaches for similar reasoning in other political notes, such as the
following:
> A British woman is on trial for going to a park and inviting teenage boys to
> have sex with her there. Her husband acted as a lookout in case someone else
> passed by. One teenager allegedly visited her at her house repeatedly to have
> sex with her.
>
> None of these acts would be wrong in any sense, provided they took precautions
> against spreading infections. The idea that adolescents (of whatever sex) need
> to be "protected" from sexual experience they wish to have is prudish
> ignorantism, and making that experience a crime is perverse. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170612074722/http://stallman.org/archives/2017-mar-jun.html#26_May_2017_(Prudish_ignorantism)">stallman.org, 26 May 2017, "Prudish ignorantism"</a></small>
The woman in question, aged 60, had sex with her husband, age 69, in a public
space, and invited spectators as young as 11 to participate.
Stallman has also sought to normalize adult attraction to minors, literally
describing it as "normal" in September 2018:
> Calling teenagers "children" encourages treating teenagers as children, a
> harmful practice which retards their development into capable adults.
>
> In this case, the effect of that mislabeling is to smear Wilson. It is rare,
> and considered perverse, for adults to be physically attracted to children.
> However, it is normal for adults to be physically attracted to adolescents.
> Since the claims about Wilson is the latter, it is wrong to present it as the
> former.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/archives/2018-sep-dec.html#23_September_2018_(Cody_Wilson)">stallman.org, 23 September 2018, "Cody Wilson"</a></small>
One month prior, Stallman made a statement which similarly normalized adult
attraction to minors, and suggests that acting on this attraction should be
acceptable to society, likening opposition to this view to homosexual conversion
therapy:
> This accords with the view that Stendhal reported in France in the 1800s,
> that a woman's most beautiful years were from 16 to 20. 
>
> Although this attitude on men's part is normal, the author still wants to
> present it as wrong or perverted, and implicitly demands men somehow control
> their attraction to direct it elsewhere. Which is as absurd, and as
> potentially oppressive, as claiming that homosexuals should control their
> attraction and direct it towards to the other sex. Will men be pressured to
> undergo "age conversion therapy" intended to brainwash them to feel attracted
> mainly to women of their own age? 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180911075211/https://www.stallman.org/archives/2018-jul-oct.html#21_August_2018_(Age_and_attraction)">stallman.org, 21 August 2018, "Age and attraction"</a></small>
A trend is thus clearly seen in Stallman's regular political notes, over several
years, wherein Stallman re-iterates his position that "adolescents" or
"teenagers" are distinct from "children" for the purpose of having sex with
adults, and normalizes and defends adult attraction to minors and adults who
perform sexual acts with minors. We see this distinction of the two groups,
children and adolescents, outlined again on his "anti-glossary", which still
published on his website today, albeit without the connotations of sex. His
regular insistence on a definition of children which excludes adolescents
serves such that his redaction of his controversial 2013 comment serves to
redact none of the other widely-condemned comments he has made since.
Stallman has often written political notes when people accused of sexual
impropriety, particularly with minors, appear in the news, or appear among
Stallman's social circle. Stallman's comments generally downplay the abuse and
manipulate language in a manner which benefits perpetrators of abuse. We see
this downplaying in another example from 2019:
> Should we accept stretching the terms "sexual abuse" and "molestation" to
> include looking without touching?
>
> I do not accept it. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-may-aug.html#11_June_2019_(Stretching_meaning_of_terms)">stallman.org, 11 June 2019 "Stretching meaning of terms"</a></small>
Stallman is writing here in response to a news article outlining accusations of
sexual misconduct directed at Ohio State athletics doctor Richard Strauss.
Strauss was accused of groping at least 177 students between 1979 and 1997
during routine physical exams, accusations corroborated by at least 50 members
of the athletic department staff.
In addition to Stallman's regular fixation of the use of the word "children"
with respect to sex, this political note also draws our attention to the next
linguistic fixation of Stallman I want to question: the use of phrases like
"sexual abuse" and "sexual assault". The term "sexual assault" also appears in
Stallman's "Anti-glossary":
> Sexual assault: The term is applied to a broad range of actions, from rape on
> one end, to the least physical contact on the other, as well as everything in
> between. It acts as propaganda for treating them all the same. That would be
> wrong.
>
> The term is further stretched to include sexual harassment, which does not
> refer to a single act, but rather to a series of acts that amounts to a form
> of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly prohibited in certain situations for
> the sake of equal opportunity, but that is a different issue.
>
> I don't think that rape should be treated the same as a momentary touch.
> People we accuse have a right to those distinctions, so I am careful not to
> use the term "sexual assault" to categorize the actions of any person on any
> specific occasion.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/antiglossary.html">stallman.org, "Anti-glossary"</a></small>
Stallman often fixates on the term "sexual assault" throughout his political
notes. He feels that the term fails to distinguish between "grave" and "minor"
crimes, as he illustrated in 2021:
> "Sexual assault" is so vague that it makes no sense as a charge. Because of
> that term, we can't whether these journalists were accused of a grave crime
> or a minor one. However, the charge of espionage shows this is political
> persecution.
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://stallman.org/archives/2021-jul-oct.html#21_July_2021_(Imprisonment_of_journalists)">stallman.org, 21 July 2021, "Imprisonment of journalists"</a></small>
I would like to find out what kind of crimes Stallman feels the need to
distinguish along this axis. His other political notes give us some hints,
such as this one regarding Al Franken's sexual misconduct scandal:
> If it is true that he persistently pressured her to kiss him, on stage and
> off, if he stuck his tongue into her mouth despite her objections, that could
> well be sexual harassment. He should have accepted no for an answer the first
> time she said it. However, calling a kiss "sexual assault" is an exaggeration,
> an attempt to equate it to much graver acts, that are crimes.
>
> The term "sexual assault" encourages that injustice, and I believe it has been
> popularized specifically with that intention. That is why I reject that term. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190801201704/https://stallman.org/archives/2019-may-aug.html#30_July_2019_(Al_Franken)">stallman.org, 30 July 2019, "Al Franken"</a></small>
Stallman also wrote in 2020 to question the use of the phrase again:
> In the US, when thugs[^thugs] rape people they say are suspects, it is
> rare to bring them to justice.
>
> I object to describing any one crime as "sexual assault" because that is vague
> about the severity of the crime. This article often uses that term to refer to
> many crimes that differ in severity but raise the same issue. That may be a
> valid practice. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://stallman.org/notes/2020-jul-oct.html#12_August_2020_(When_thugs_rape_people_they_say_are_suspects)">stallman.org, 12 August 2020, "When thugs rape people they say are suspects"</a></small>
[^thugs]: Stallman consistently refers to police officers as "thugs" in his
    writing; see Stallman's [Glossary](https://stallman.org/glossary.html).
In the article Stallman cites in this political note, various unwelcome sexual
acts by the police are described, the least severe of which is probably
molestation.
More alarmingly, Stallman addresses his views on the term "sexual assault" in
this 2017 note, affording for the possibility that a 35-year-old man could have
had consensual sex with an 11-year-old girl.
> Jelani Maraj (who I had never heard of) could be imprisoned for a long time
> for "sexual assault". What does that concretely mean?
>
> Due to the vagueness of the term "sexual assault" together with the dishonest
> law that labels sex with adolescents as "rape" even if they are willing, we
> cannot tell from this article what sort of acts Maraj was found to have
> committed. So we can't begin to judge whether those acts were wrong.
>
> I see at least three possibilities. Perhaps those acts really constituted
> rape — it is a possibility. Or perhaps the two had sex willingly, but her
> parents freaked out and demanded prosecution. Or, intermediate between those
> two, perhaps he pressured her into having sex, or got her drunk. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://stallman.org/archives/2017-nov-feb.html#13_November_2017_(Jelani_Maraj)">stallman.org, 13 November 2017, "Jelani Maraj"</a></small>
Another article by Stallman does not explicitly refer to sexual assault, but
does engage in a bizarre defense of a journalist who was fired for masturbating
during a video conference. In this article Stallman fixates on questions such as
whether or not the genitals being in view of the webcam was intentional or not,
and suggests that masturbating on a video call would be acceptable should the
genitals remain unseen.
> The New Yorker's unpublished note to staff was vague about its grounds for
> firing Toobin. Indeed, it did not even acknowledge that he had been fired.
> This is unfair, like convicting someone on unstated charges. Something didn't
> meet its "standards of conduct", but it won't tell us what — we can only
> guess. What are the possibilities? Intentionally engaging in video-call sex as
> a side activity during a work meeting? If he had not made a mistake in keeping
> that out of view of the coworkers, why would it make a difference what the
> side activity was? 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/articles/toobin.html">stallman.org, November 2020, "On the Firing of Jeffrey Toobin"</a></small>
Finally, Stallman elaborated on his thoughts on the term most recently in
October 2023. This note gives the clearest view of Stallman's preferred
distinction between various sexual crimes:
> I warned that the stretchable term "sexual assault", which extends from grave
> crimes such as rape through significant crimes such as groping and down to no
> clear lower bound, could be stretched to criminalize minor things, perhaps
> even stealing a kiss. Now this has happened.
>
> What next? Will a pat on the arm or a hug be criminalized? There is no clear
> limit to how far this can go, when a group builds up enough outrage to push
> it. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://www.stallman.org/archives/2023-sep-dec.html#15_October_2023_(Sexual_assault_for_stealing_a_kiss)">stallman.org, 15 October 2023, "Sexual assault for stealing a kiss"</a></small>
From Stallman's statements, we can refine his objection to the term "sexual
assault", and sexual behaviors generally, to further suggest that the following
beliefs are held by Stallman on the subject:
- Groping and molestation are not sexual assault, but are crimes
- Kissing someone without consent is not sexual assault, furthermore it is not wrong
- Masturbating during a video conference is not wrong if you are not seen doing so
- A 35-year-old man having sex with an 11-year-old girl does not constitute
  rape, nor sexual assault, but is in fact conscionable
The last of these may be covered under Stallman's 2019 retraction, even
accounting for Stallman's unconventional use of the word "children".
Stallman's fixation on the term "sexual assault" can be understood in his
political notes as having the political aims of eroding the meaning of the
phrase, questioning the boundaries of consent, downplaying the importance of
agency in intimate interactions, appealing for the defense of people accused of
sexual assault, and arguing for sexual relationships between minors and adults
to be normalized. In one notable case, he has used this political angle to rise
to the defense of his friends -- in Stallman's infamous email regarding Marvin
Minsky, he writes the following:
> The injustice [done to Minsky] is in the word “assaulting”. The term “sexual
> assault” is so vague and slippery that it facilitates accusation inflation:
> taking claims that someone did X and leading people to think of it as Y, which
> is much worse than X.
>
> (...)
>
> The word “assaulting” presumes that he applied force or violence, in some
> unspecified way, but the article itself says no such thing. Only that they had
> sex.
>
> We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she
> presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced
> by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from
> most of his associates.
>
> I’ve concluded from various examples of accusation inflation that it is
> absolutely wrong to use the term “sexual assault” in an accusation.
<small>&mdash; Excerpt from <a href="https://scribe.rip/medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec210794">Selam G's recount of Stallman's email</a> to MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory mailing list, September 2019. Selam's quotation has been corroborated by other sources.
Minsky is, in this context, accused of having had a sexual encounter with a
minor facilitated by convicted child trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. The original
accusation does not state that this sexual encounter actually occurred; only
that the minor in question was instructed to have sex with Minsky. Minsky would
have been at least 75 years old at the time of the alleged incident; the minor
was 16.
</small>
There is an important, but more subtle pattern in Stallman's statements that I
want to draw your attention to here: Stallman appears to have little to no
understanding of the role of power dynamics in sexual harassment, assault, and
rape. Stallman appears to reject the supposition that these acts could occur
without an element of outwardly apparent violent coercion.
This is most obviously evidenced by his statements regarding the sexual abuse of
minors; most people understand that minors cannot consent to sex even if they
"appear willing", in particular because an adult in this situation is exploiting
a difference in experience and maturity to manipulate the child into sexually
satisfying them -- in other words, a power differential. Stallman seems to
reject this understanding of consent in his various defenses of people accused
of sexual impropriety with minors, and in cases where the pretense of consent
cannot be easily established, he offers the perpetrator the benefit of the
doubt.
We can also find an example of Stallman disregarding power dynamics with respect
to adults in the following political note from 2017:
> A famous theater director had a habit of pestering women, asking them for sex.
>
> As far as I can tell from this article, he didn't try to force women into sex.
>
> When women persistently said no, he does not seem to have tried to punish them.
>
> The most he did was ask.
>
> He was a pest, but nothing worse than that. 
<small>&mdash; <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180131020215/https://stallman.org/archives/2017-jul-oct.html#29_October_2017_(Pestering_women)">stallman.org, 29 October 2017, "Pestering women"</a></small>
In this case we have an example of "quid pro quo", a kind of sexual harassment
which weaponizes power dynamics for sexual gratification. This kind of sexual
harassment is explicitly cited as illegal by Title VII of the US Civil Rights
Act. A lack of competence in this respect displayed by Stallman, whose position
in the Free Software Foundation board of directors requires that he act in a
manner consistent with this law, is alarming.
I have identified this blindness to power dynamics as a recurring theme in
Stallman's comments on sexual abuse, be it with respect to sexual relationships
between minors and adults, managers and subordinates, students and teachers, or
public figures and their audience. I note for the reader that Stallman has held
and currently holds several of these positions of power.
In addition to his position as a voting member of the Free Software Foundation's
Board of Directors, Stallman is still invited to speak at events and
conferences. [Stallman's infamous rider][rider] prescribes a number of his
requirements for attending an event; most of his conditions are relatively
reasonable, though amusing. In this document, he states his preference for being
accommodated in private, on a "spare couch", when he travels. At these events,
in these private homes, he may be afforded many opportunities to privacy with
vulnerable people, including minors that, in his view, can consent to having sex
with adults.
[rider]: https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/fulltext/20111018.txt
In summary, Stallman has a well-documented and oft-professed set of political
beliefs which reject the social and legal norms regarding consent. He is not
simply quietly misled in these beliefs; rather he advocates for these values
using his political platform. He has issued no meaningful retractions of these
positions or apologies for harm caused, and has continued to pursue a similar
agenda since his return to the FSF board of directors.
This creates a toxic environment not only in the Free Software Foundation and in
Stallman's direct purview, but in the broader Free Software movement. The free
software movement is culturally poisoned by our support of Stallman as our
ideological leader. The open letter calling for Stallman's removal received
3,000 signatures; the counter-letter in support of Stallman received 6,876
before it stopped accepting submissions.
Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985, and has performed
innumerable works to the benefit of our community since then. We've taken
Stallman's views on software freedom seriously, and they've led us to great
achievements. It is to Stallman's credit that the Free Software community is
larger than one man. However, one's political qualifications to speak about free
software does not make one qualified to address matters of sex; in this respect
Stallman's persistence presents as dangerous incompetence.
When we consider his speech on sex as a discourse that has been crafted and
rehearsed methodically over the years, he asks us to consider him seriously, and
so we must. When we analyze the dangerous patterns in this discourse, we have to
conclude that he is not fit for purpose in his leadership role, and we must
acknowledge the shadow that our legitimization of his discourse casts on our
community.