Re the idea that because someone interacted casually "the next day", they don't have a case: it's very normal for people who've been harassed to initially shrug things off, because it's just too jarring to their world-view to swerve their opinion of someone from "friend and mentor" to "creep". And it's very normal to come to understand that something was actually sexual harassment gradually, or when a third party says "no wait seriously that isn't right" and makes you face it. And then it's normal to be ambivalent about speaking up and take your time to do so.
Being able to act without fully processing trauma is a deeply important evolutionary adaptation. Our brains will compartmentalize things to help us cope and survive and continue on, because our ancestors who didn't do it automatically were more likely to die. That's not to say we all react the same to trauma, but a common reaction is one of tiny adjustments and a slow dawning of the fullness of the experience.
We also are surrounded by people who are well meaning but make mistakes and our socialization prepares us to be forgiving of them. To give time for repair. Abusers use those social structures (consciously or unconsciously) to give themselves space to do what they like. It's a big move to fully separate yourself from someone, and abusers see that if they can make it more comfortable to simply live further away from them, that they can continue without changing or facing the damage they have caused.
I really encourage anyone who doesn't understand why assault or abuse reactions look this way to imagine what actions they might take if their current boss were to suddenly grab their genitals without warning or permission. There's an element of the personal violation that, I think, is difficult to appreciate - but the practicalities of addressing it are, I think, obvious once you start to imagine it. Who would you tell? What consequences would you suffer? How outlandish might you seem to peers, other managers, etc? Personal violations like this are deeply treacherous and the people who commit them take advantage of that fact to keep doing it.
Hitting on a minor, who you know is a minor (17 years old) when you are in a position of power over her is more than just a little mistake. DeGrey admits this. Imagine if a coach or a teacher did this. That alone is a serious serious breach of ethics, and gives some insight into a person's mind and potential other activities.
I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass.
Writing love letters to 17 year olds who work for you? Come on. You should know/do better.
> I've crushed on co-workers; I've had crushes on professors; I've had crushes on classmates. Attraction in a work/study environment is real. The thing is ... you don't have to do or say anything, guys. Just keep that stuff locked down like a non-creep and it will eventually pass.
Expressing romantic interest in a co-worker or classmate is not de-facto inappropriate. Your advice is solid for folks in positions of power, but for the rest of us, not so much. The idea that young men and women who work together should be forbidden from exploring relationships with with classmates or coworkers is a kind of bizarre neo-puritanism. (Your human nature? That's bad! Ignore it!) And for what? To prevent the occasional, momentary discomfort of rebuffing a respectful advance?
Of course nobody should have to endure sexual harassment, socially inept creepiness, or blind persistence from unwanted suiters. And people who engage in these behaviors should be paid a visit from HR (and eventually receive a pink slip). But the vast majority of adults are capable of tactful communication, and should not be prevented from exploring the full possibilities of their interpersonal relationships simply because the relationship began at work.
I agree in principle, but we should also consider the asymmetric effects in practice.
If every female co-worker gets multiple unsolicited advances per year, that could be a problem, even if the advances are tactful, between equals, and listen to rejection.
At some level you just want to go in to work, not be spammed with advances all the time. It's different for most guys we don't get nearly the amount of interest, even if we're attractive. So it would be crucial to try to understand what women experience and what they want out of a workplace instead of just going on abstract concepts.
Studies show that between 10%-20% or people meet their spouses at work. It makes sense that far more than that have had long relationships with people they met at work. I suspect the actual situation with regard to women and men at work and approaching each other, and whether it's wanted or unwanted, is somewhat more complicated than "women get badgered".
> The idea that young men and women who work together should be forbidden from exploring relationships with with classmates or coworkers is a kind of bizarre neo-puritanism.
The problem with that is, what happens if the relationship goes south as relationships tend to do over time. Then the two of you have to work every day with someone they hate. It's just more sensible to keep things professional to begin with.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That it's more sensible to keep things professional to begin with sounds totally logical to me.
It certainly minimizes the potential drama that comes with being in a romantic relationship with a colleague.
I've witnessed many beautiful things happening between people that met each other at a workplace. I've also witnessed a lot of shit shows as a result of that same thing.
Not playing the game excludes both of the situations, and while you can't win and have a beautiful thing in the end, you also can't lose. I personally chose not to play that game.
In my experience, my romantic relationships tend to last a lot longer than I tend to stay at the same job or in the same class, and tend to be far more important to me.
> Expressing romantic interest in a co-worker or classmate is not de-facto inappropriate.
Norms have changed, and in 2021, it is inappropriate. That's kind of what #MeToo meant.
Think about this from the other side- do you want to finely parse the harassment quotient of flirtation and dinner invitations forever, or do you want to just ban it?
Careful with this. IME, everything you feel gets expressed eventually. You either make some choices about that expression, or it leaks out of you - usually in toxic ways (passive aggression, overly controlling behavior, snipe-comments, etc.)
Have close friends (and a therapist!) that you can talk to about just about anything. A lot of times, feelings are signals for exploration; "here be learning", as it were.
Aubrey even names it, without realizing it (IMO) when he says "could treat [me] as an equal on every other level". I'm betting that if Aubrey had taken the time to feel and understand, he'd have realized that Deming (at that time) wasn't someone he could actually treat as an equal on every level. (And, probably, that he had a need for more people in his life that he could).
From reading his email to her, it's clear that he did realize this, but somehow he also thought he could get away with writing a suggestive email to her about his "adventurous love life" [sic]. (To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.)
> To be clear, referencing such things in a written work email would be regarded as grossly unprofessional no matter what the circumstances, but Laura being 17 and working for him at the time makes it quite outrageous.
I dunno. Ill-advised, sure. Inappropriate, maybe. I've had all kinds of personal conversations with coworkers and bosses, there was never anything more to it. Yes, that she was 17 means he should have been more professional about it, but in and of itself, without knowing the contents of the email, I don't think its any more strange than perfectly normal but personal conversations I've had with people I've worked with.
Without seeing the email and the context around which it was sent, I don't think we can judge in either direction based off the existence of the email alone.
He confirms that he wrote an inadvised email. We still do not know the actual content or context around the email, so we don't know if it was malicious, abuse or simply somewhat inappropriate but otherwise malign.
We know she felt uncomfortable over it, but we do not know if he wrote it innocently-but-stupidly or if there is more to it.
To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is:
Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake"
He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way.
I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.
That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind.
The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.
I don't remember exactly, but in Canada I believe it's significant whether the other person is in a position of authority over the minor. This is to prevent grooming and/or the implicit threat of reprisal if the minor doesn't comply.
Hitting on someone who’s much younger and less experienced than you may be legal, but is still wrong. The power the more experienced person can exert on the less experienced one is dangerous and can easily be misused. It often is.
Exactly. Like the Clinton/Lewinsky thing-- it was the start of exposing a predator. (Clinton's accusers came out of the woodwork after that, many with firm evidence, some with settlements in hand.)
A minor that he had mentored since she was 14. If that isn't solid evidence of poor judgment I don't know what is. Also incredibly and disgustingly creepy.
That defense post is.. really strange. It seems to suggest the complainants have been brain-washed (by secret behind the scenes people?) and also claims the fact there arent lots of other complaints as evidence of innocence -- there doesn't have to be an "iceberg" of complaints for you to be guilty. Lots of people get convicted of just one crime.
He tries to put the burden back on Celine with the "everyone knows she would never lose control of her drinking". Celine's allegation was that "Aubrey funneled me alcohol and hit on me the entire night." Aubrey is basically saying that even if he wanted to get her drunk, he wouldn't have been able to, which reeks of gaslighting.
The follow-up with "the very next day she wrote to me without the faintest hint of ambivalence, asking for additional feedback on her presentation" is also completely disingenuous. He's in a position of absolute power and SENS is writing her paychecks. If I had an argument with my wife and the next morning's text was "please pick up milk", that is not evidence that things are good between us.
Innocent until proven guilty is a trial standard. I doubt any of this will go to court, so we have to make up our minds based on what's available. He admits there's evidence he was hitting on a 17 year old and his rhetoric wouldn't convince me the sky is blue, on top of it being tone deaf. More women don't need to come forward and upheave their lives to try to bury this guy's career, he's digging his own grave.
Neither of the accusers allege anything terribly egregious. The premise of their post is that their experiences are part of a pattern, that there are many more victims and that some of de Grey's behavior goes beyond merely inappropriate.
The repsonse denies that pattern. It doesn't allege "brain-washing," just that the accusers have been misinformed. I would bet that his behavior is part of a pattern but it seems like a fine idea to wait and see.
That defense pose is really strange, and in some aspects really disgusting.
"In order to orient you"?
"Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17"?
Even if this is the watered-down, best-light scenario, this is very weird.
And then tries to use Laura's words against her- she previously dismisses it as an honest mistake and then changes her mind when presented with apparent new evidence. And somehow portrays this as them being deceived.
Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term. If one wanted to smear Aubrey de Grey, she-said-he-said creepiness is one of the least effective ways to do it because a wide swath of the population aren't bothered enough to affect someone's career over it-- the only reason consequences are newsworthy is because they're so uncommon.
Celine Halioua isn't "anonymous", she's a successful aging researcher and her complaints are if anything, even more damning for Aubrey and the SENS folks: https://www.celinehh.com/aubrey
I think what he's suggesting is that "at first, she was fine with it, but then somebody convinced her not to be fine with it" or some such thing. Which may have some debatable merit, depending on the circumstances... except that she was a minor. Any kind of defense or explanation goes out the window when you're that kind of creep.
That weirds me out, because it implies that she's not her own woman who can take new evidence (Celine's complaint) and go "wait a second, that thing years ago that he did to me was actually also shitty and unacceptable".
I think that is a complex and worthy thing to debate as it addresses many different points; agency, regret, information, intent, consent.
I think the law deals with similar concerns by not basing a judgement on how someone feels, but rather on actions and agreements. Did they lie, cheat, steal, deceive, coerce, manipulate, intimidate, threaten, abuse, etc in context of some agreement or lack thereof. But that's just the law; obviously there is an entire world of morality/ethics that exists outside the law with different considerations.
I'm just saying, he hit on a minor, and he doesn't appear to be a moron, so screw this guy.
Shouldn't be an issue. Like, if your act was so marginal that a friend saying "no seriously, that sounds like creeping to me" can tip the balance from okay to not okay, maybe you shouldn't be doing that.
> Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term.
The person or people that would be tricking other people in this scenario into coming forward wouldn't necessarily have a career blown up, just the people they tricked.
I think the implication he's going for is "I had two, and just two somewhat sketchy interactions in the past, and neither were all that bad, and then those people were convinced there there were a lot more that happened they didn't know about, and so felt compelled to step forward with their experiences to help others, even though those additional experiences never happened."
On the one hand, I can see a possibility where that's possible, and this wasn't even premeditated to this extend, and it was just someone on the board badmouthing him and implying stuff, and it traveled between people and got out of hand, but on the other had, that seems pretty unlikely. You'd think someone willing to publicly speak about their experiences like this that might expect backlash would be more careful than to do so without making very sure to investigate a bit more, so the "it's really just you two and wasn't great, but not all that bad" defense isn't really a strong one, at least not if any other evidence comes forth. If none comes forth, that will be interesting (but at the same time we'll all have moved on and will likely associate Aubrey de Grey with this even if he's later somewhat vindicated in some way).
> "Why would anyone try to trick two women into making allegations that a guy is a creep? They fully well know that these allegations will blow up their careers and are very likely to be unsuccessful in influencing Aubrey de Grey's career long term."
From the look of the Twitter feed of one of the accusers, it doesn't look to be doing anything but promoting them and putting them up as brave, etc.
The linked post by Celine Halioua is also disturbing:
"At one such dinner, I was sat next to Aubrey by a SENS executive. I was told to keep him ‘entertained’; Aubrey funneled me alcohol and hit on me the entire night. He told me that I was a ‘glorious woman’ and that as a glorious woman I had a responsibility to have sex with the SENS donors in attendance so they would give money to him. I left that dinner sobbing. ... Another SENS executive harassed me so severely that I eventually dropped out of my PhD to escape him (a legal investigation upheld my many accusations against him). I later learned I was far from his first victim, that SENS knew this, and yet they knowingly sent me to work underneath him. ... SENS is aware of all of this. The Board was brought testimonies from other women in the beginning of 2021. These testimonies include physical sexual abuse. SENS did not act. Only after Laura and I came forward two months ago did SENS initiate an internal investigation."
It’s hard to participate in a conversation like this without sticking your foot in it or dogpiling.
Something has always seemed a bit off to me about Aubrey’s need to grasp at youth. To hear accusations that he was grasping at other people’s youth as well is not that shocking.
I could use other adjectives but let’s stick with a safer one: vampiric.
It’s called “grooming”. When someone holds an influential spot in your life, you can develop complex feelings for that person, which can be hard to distinguish from romantic feelings. The fewer healthy adult relationships you’ve had, due to age or circumstance, the harder it can be to sort out these feelings. Which is why therapists cannot date patients, teachers date students, and it’s frowned upon for teachers to date former students.
Just because you fixed my life doesn’t mean we should bone. As the person with power in the dynamic the responsibility is on you to remember this.
When you mentor someone who has no life experience or especially attachment issues you are consciously or unconsciously dealing with a power dynamic. If you try to turn that romantic, or even if you just let it happen, you are exploiting that dynamic. That is why people who do that are called predators, even if they follow the letter of the law.
I find it peculiar and surprising that this PR event is happening just at the moment of Aubrey finally having received a good round of financing and publicity.
He prompted it by contacting her.[1] And it wouldn't be even a little peculiar or surprising even if he didn't. Publicity reminds other people of their own experiences with the person.
An adult, a mentor, with authority over a minor, can't avoid their sexual advances being a threat. They can't avoid it even if they didn't mean anything by it. So they just shouldn't do that.
> In many countries there is a thing called "right of honor" (the right to not be difamated) and would turn things against the accusing part if no evidence of the claims is presented.
There are of course defamation laws that Grey could pursue if he really believes the statements made here are defamatory. But the kind of broader restrictions you're proposing would violate the First Amendment, so are unlikely to happen in the US any time soon.
The UK/EU doesn't have the exact same Constitutional guarantees as the US (certain policies like Right to be Forgotten are permissible in the EU, but would be unconstitutional in the US). However, I would still be fairly surprised to see a country like Britain adopt "right of honor" policies. In general, most people (both in the US and in EU nations) don't want the government to decide what personal experiences they can share online, or whether or not they can freely associate or disassociate with other people.
> Dear Talibans
:) The Taliban is, of course, famous for its participation in and support of the #metoo movement.
Have you experienced sexual harassment, or talked to people you trust who have? I ask because your post is the kind of thing that a person with very little knowlege and/or experience of human nature would write. Book smart and street stupid.
EDIT> As pointed out by others, he admits to sexual harassment of a minor. Maybe you should believe Aubrey instead of posting knee-jerk reactions to hot-button topics.
EDIT 2> This post comes off more attacking than I would hope to communicate at my best. I still believe the substance, but regret the tone of my original edit. I would say that I am definitely guilty of doing a partial pattern match on some topic, realizing that it is a hot-button issue for me, and then going off on some rant that is only tangentially related, or ignores key points of the actual situation under discussion. We should all try not to do this, but we should also have some tolerance for people doing this and stay engaged.
What was in the email? I didn't see it posted and the short quotes she wrote didn't really have anything in them. I mean, inappropriate, possibly, but not on its own evidence of malice or predation.
People say dumb shit all the time, in person, over email, on the phone, etc. We know he said something he shouldn't have, but we don't know exactly what, his motives or whether it was just a "dumb shit" mistake, and I don't see enough evidence here in either direction. Maybe he's a predator, but without seeing the content of the email, I don't know whether sending it to a 17 year old is evidence of that.
After spending the last day watching my two comments here bounce between positive and negative karma, without a single reply, I have to ask the people that silently downvoted:
Do you have information I don't? Have you seen the email?
It seems my statement was rather divisive: plenty of people disagreed or disliked it enough to downvote, yet enough people agreed to balance it out again. But nobody replied. Nobody corrected my logic or gave a counter argument.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the guy is innocent, I'm saying I don't know if he's innocent or guilty and that the information we have isn't enough to know. I don't care either way, I don't know any of the people involved, I have no skin in the game.
But I despise lynch mobs where people try to ruin someones life based purely on an allegation, without any evidence. The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that their allegations are true. This post didn't do that, it only showed that further investigation is required, it did not prove guilt. The email does not prove guilt or wrongdoing, just lack of judgement, which pretty much everyone is guilty of at one point or another. But these lynch mobs are dangerous, people have had and do have their lives ruined over an outrage mob, based on completely false, misinterpreted or blown out of proportion accusations. Until we know with absolute certainty that this isn't the case, we shouldn't try to destroy others' lives.
Things that are not strictly illegal may still be unethical. Do you feel that individuals should never raise awareness about unethical behavior unless it is illegal?
This is a good point and I agree with you. Still not sure whether a public prosecution is the best thing as I completely ignore such email between both parties and this person as full grown adult still decided to go work with him.
You have no conception of how useless if not outright hostile police are to this kind of issue. In this case, the two accusers took the exactly correct action: once they compared experiences and realized there was a pattern here, not a one off isolated mistake, they raised the issue with the organization. The organization is taking what they're saying seriously enough to retain an independent investigator, though almost certainly their ultimate goal is organizational CYA.
We aren’t in the age of rocks and stones and revenges. The police snd the justice is for everyone and if it isn’t that should be the top first priority before any social justice campaign individual moves.
Some people in this forum seems to depict people who just don’t agree in their modus operandi.
> should be the top first priority before any social justice campaign individual moves
So you are saying that we have to fix the whole society before anyone can tell anyone’s boss that the person in question was creeping on them in a position of authority. Do we also have to solve poverty before or only the gender related injustices?
> Some people in this forum seems to depict people who just don’t agree in their modus operandi.
Sorry I don’t understand you. Who depicts whom doing what?
In some places, the age of consent is 17 (or lower), so without physical coercion, Aubrey may not have a legal leg to stand on depending on the content of the message.
Although that’s right I still totally ignore the content of that email and if it was ilegal that should be put in the knowledge of the legal tutors and authorities. The other thing is that this person as she turned an adult continued the contact with this person, so I don’t really think a public scandal is justified.
In an era that should have equal opportunity a non-issue, we're move straight into the opposite direction. Aubrey de Gray may be canceled. But the the most salient lesson here? Don't mentor young women, especially if they're remotely attractive. It's far from being worth the risk.
You think I'm exaggerating? What could kill a successful career these days? If you'll excuse me a flippant comparison, even a double digit chance of having caused Covid isn't doing it. But an accusation of misconduct years ago can. Just ponder the odds a bit.
So what would motivate somebody to risk this? "Just don't be a creep"? Shit, if you think you can interact a couple of years with a pretty woman and are 100% certain you'll never flirt, you're... I was about to say "a better man than I", but on second thought, that's inhuman. Not the "not flirt" part, plenty of men succeed. But the being sure you won't, not with multiple women, over many years. I'm giving myself much better lifetime odds of not crashing my motorcycle.
So again... what's to gain for a successful professional in academia or business, to work with and mentor young women, when it's literally the only major risk on one's career? There are enough bright young men that are much safer.
> Don't mentor young women, especially if they're remotely attractive. It's far from being worth the risk.
Anyone with this attitude shouldn't be mentoring in the first place.
It's really not hard to stay on the right side of the line and not hit on someone when you're in a position of power over them. A vast number of people manage this every day with no effort whatsoever.
If you really, genuinely feel that the only way for you to avoid misconduct allegations is to avoid interacting with women entirely, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your behaviour.
So you're saying young and/or attractive women won't even get internships, because their prospective mentors want to avoid the risk of being accused / don't want to work around around someone they'll have to be on a "Mike Pence behaviour" with?
Sure, that's a simple solution for the mentors-in-spe, but seems a bit of a shitty deal for the women.
> Shit, if you think you can interact a couple of years with a pretty woman and are 100% certain you'll never flirt, you're... I was about to say "a better man than I", but on second thought, that's inhuman.
Excuse me? In this situation you're claiming you think it's inhuman not to see a minor as an object of sexual attraction?
Funny as you're twisting what I said. I'm really tempted to wonder if it's because of culture war, or your subconscious feels a bit guilty. Probably culture war.
I called inhuman being certain that you'll never randomly flirting with any young women you're working with, over many years. Not exactly what you're saying, is it?
Also for the record, most 17 years old are attractive. They're not dateable if you're older, not relationship material, illegal to have sex with in certain legislation, a bad idea to in most cases and so on. But attractive? Why wouldn't they be? Ah, because you called them "minors". I'm sorry for you, if you really live in that world.
Edit: should have probably used a less harsh tone. Sorry. I'll blame it on being misinterpreted so badly, but still.
In this specific context it's about someone sending a sexual message to a minor. There's nothing inhuman about not doing that, and excusing it as something all straight men do when around women is bizarre.
Back to the motorcycle metaphor. It's about risk management. You don't go out riding your bike expecting to fall. But you wear your helmet and take other measures because you also don't expect to never fall over 10 years of riding.
What I'm saying is: if the risk of mentoring young women is a sudden career end (possibly the greatest such risk), men will start taking it into consideration. Some will just be extra careful around women. Some will just decide it's not worth it.
Also, there's another thing I wanted so say from the beginning. People keep throwing around ideas like "you should never date people you're in a position of power over". Sure, when that position is that of a teacher, (foster) parent or coach, I totally agree it's a bad idea, most of the time. But if, like Aubrey, you're at the top of your professional domain... who exactly are you going to date? You're working, talking and socializing with people in your professional area 99% of the time. Yeah, you should pay extra care, but in the end you'll still end up dating in the same pool.
Moral arguments aside, there's an interesting empirical question here: how many straight men actually feel no attraction to (pubescent) teen girls? That sounds like a set of preferences that would have a hard time evolving, and one that would have been seen as fairly odd in most historical periods I know of.
> [H]ow many straight men actually feel no attraction to (pubescent) teen girls?
I've long found much younger women to be ever less of a sexual turn-on. When I was fifty, it felt like "anything under thirty-five is pedophilia"; now (at 57) that limit is probably somewhere around forty. Sure, I could still see myself hugging some nubile sixteen-year-old -- just like I could a boy the same age, namely in a comforting "There, there, dear toddler, did you hurt your knee? We'll put a band-aid on it" way. (Though I probably wouldn't actually do that either, knowing how it would likely be construed.)
Dunno if this is simply due to diminishing testosterone, or (feels just as likely to me), if you want to get into evolutionary psychology: parenthood. Maybe we've evolved to be programmed to, after a certain age, not so much constantly strive to procreate, but to take care of the offspring we and others have already set into the world? But maybe if you haven't already done that, the drive to procreate isn't replaced by one to nurture. (Hm, does anybody know if the guy has kids?)
I just think it's bizarre to describe not being sexually attracted to minors as inhuman. That seems to imply the poster believes all humans cannot resist flirting with minors due to the power of sexual attraction. To minors.
Aubrey de Grey's response: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6528005127224941...
SENS's response: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4242081739160861...
More info from Laura Deming: https://mobile.twitter.com/LauraDeming/status/14253652124844...