Double Standard for Age Of Consent?
0
Count Alucard wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
I love how you downplay those atrocities as "political reasons".
Downplay? I just didn't feel like going into the details which lead to the Twenty-sixth Amendment.
But no, as you said most people don't reach maturity till their mid 20's. I know there's sexual dimorphism among humans, but even most males don't fully understand sex and it's impacts by that age.(early to mid teens)
Yup, emotionally we do not mature until the mid 20s, which why people under 25 are more likely to get into car accidents and engaged in unprotected sex. It's the thrilling seeking and risking taking age. However, speaking in terms of cognitive abilities people between 15-25 are adults, thus should know full will what sex is and it's consequences. They do rash things, often in the heat of the moment, but not for lack of understanding.
Unequal prison terms and punishments(like not releasing information of female violators) only further sets the inequalities in our justice system and pushes the belief that men are always aggressors, females always victims.
Not really. I'm only saying the male-on-female pairing should be treated harsher due to the possible impregnation with health risks to teen females who are not sexually mature. Other pairings such as male-on-male and female-on-female should get lighter punishments as well. Hell, even males sexing underaged but sexually mature teen females should be taken lightly.
The possible chance of impregnation should not be a factor into a person's sentencing. Not only do you simply remove any and all context of the case itself, you assume everything else is just peachy. What of possible rectal damage for male on male cases? People can fucking die from that. Or how about some of the cruel methods of female on female cases? Women are known to use tools in these cases, one reported to use rose stems with the thorns still attached.
The gender of the victim or the perp should not be taken into account in this case. Justice is blind, the gender of the victim does not make the case any less serious than the action would against the opposite gender.
The moral implications of 14 year old having sex with a 22 year old are often controversial, but the fact of the matter is that it is against the law. It shouldn't matter if the victim has a chance of pregnancy, the action is still a crime, and as such, acted upon accordingly.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
The possible chance of impregnation should not be a factor into a person's sentencing.
Why shouldn't it? Is it not child endangerment on the sexually underdeveloped female? Pregnancy among that group has a five time more mortality rate than sexual mature females and their underdeveloped pelvis can't deliver a baby properly. Why shouldn't a male have a bonus charge of child endangerment if he engages in vaginal intercourse with a underage female not yet finished with puberty?
Not only do you simply remove any and all context of the case itself, you assume everything else is just peachy. What of possible rectal damage for male on male cases? People can fucking die from that
Recital damage can happen at any age, unlike the medical complications I mentioned. To my knowledge dying as a directly from it is rare. The only person I have ever heard of that happening to was Kenneth Pinyan and that was with a horse's penis.
Or how about some of the cruel methods of female on female cases? Women are known to use tools in these cases, one reported to use rose stems with the thorns still attached.
Pretty sure cruel methods doesn't inherently come with lesbian sex.
0
Spoiler:
The reason it shouldn't is because it is already a case of child endangerment. The entire point of it is based on the fact that an adult is taking advantage of a child, and is endangering them with either physical or psychological harm. The fact that they could get pregnant is already considered in the case, but is generally lumped into a list of dangers.
And really? Just because it's rare excuses the danger they are put in? Are you fucking kidding me? Just because it's rare, the potential danger is ignored and is thus excused? Then why the fuck are you using the pregnancy argument? The danger itself has a probability of not happening anyway, and we have weeks to abort the fetus. Sure, we may have a limited window to abort the fetus, but at least she has a larger margin of time.
And did I say it was lesbian sex? No, just that some of these women tend to be cruel. It's an observation as they've studies cases. Look it up, female aggressors often use tools, some capable of damage or pain.
The point being is that it doesn't matter of the victim is male or female. Sure, we're different, but if you base the judgement of a crime based on gender, rather than what was done, then you deviate from equality.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
The reason it shouldn't is because it is already a case of child endangerment. The entire point of it is based on the fact that an adult is taking advantage of a child, and is endangering them with either physical or psychological harm. The fact that they could get pregnant is already considered in the case, but is generally lumped into a list of dangers.
I'm not sure what you mean by psychological harm but I don't how see any serious physical harm happening outside male-on-female relationships unless the adult has a STD. Really, what physical endangerment is an healthy adult female putting an underage teen male in during sex?
And really? Just because it's rare excuses the danger they are put in? Are you fucking kidding me? Just because it's rare, the potential danger is ignored and is thus excused? Then why the fuck are you using the pregnancy argument?
That guy who died as a direct result of anal sex was because his colon was perforated...by a horse penis, not a human penis. In other words the penis has to be really really inhumanly huge to perforated a colon. While, accidental pregnancies are rather common.
The danger itself has a probability of not happening anyway, and we have weeks to abort the fetus. Sure, we may have a limited window to abort the fetus, but at least she has a larger margin of time.
That would depend on if she become aware of pregnancy in time before the cutoff and if she actually wants it.
And did I say it was lesbian sex? No, just that some of these women tend to be cruel. It's an observation as they've studies cases. Look it up, female aggressors often use tools, some capable of damage or pain.
How about you post me a link and it sounds like you're referring actual rape.
The point being is that it doesn't matter of the victim is male or female. Sure, we're different, but if you base the judgement of a crime based on gender, rather than what was done, then you deviate from equality.
I'm only saying that males with underage sexually underdeveloped(not finished with puberty) females should be treated more harshly. Not male on underaged female relationships as a whole. Your last sentence is also kinda of paradox as it acknowledges that there is no true equality.
1
Spoiler:
Potential Harm should not be the premise of a case of pedophilia or with a minor. My standard point here is that the harm a female child may face should not be treated differently as any harm to ANY child. Potential harm is not to be the point of a sentencing, it is the actions committed that must stand trial. A drunk driver is held for driving under the influence and is punished as such, not on the potential of killing little Timmy. Killing little Timmy will provide it's own sequence of consequences. Any harm done to the girl should be acknowledged and noted and the case should be focused on that along with the relationship itself and the fact he placed her in any form of long or short term damage.
Size is not the only thing that can cause a tear. It is most common for this to occur in aged individuals, often dying from from infection from the bacteria. But once again, we are talking about potential.
Did you not see I already said that?
The woman who conducted the study is named Michelle Elliott, and her research is quite difficult to find, considering it was hated among feminist groups. It is from that same research that she discovered that the majority of child molesters or rapists are women.
And yeah, I know that's your point, but once again, I am against the notion that a crime should be judged differently based on ones gender. It needs to be based on what was done. It is not automatically worse if it was done to a little girl as it was done to a little boy because of what could have happened. It's the equivalent of stating that any other crime done to a person should be judged differently based on their gender because of what could have happened, which as a whole is utter BS.
And no, it is not contradictory. We need to acknowledge the differences each holds, but we should not treat any other based on that gender.
1
Count Alucard wrote...
dragonsheart967 wrote...
The possible chance of impregnation should not be a factor into a person's sentencing.
Why shouldn't it? Is it not child endangerment on the sexually underdeveloped female? Pregnancy among that group has a five time more mortality rate than sexual mature females and their underdeveloped pelvis can't deliver a baby properly. Why shouldn't a male have a bonus charge of child endangerment if he engages in vaginal intercourse with a underage female not yet finished with puberty?
How does one determine - unless they have way too much information - that protection was not used? Assuming a condom is used properly (never mind with spermicides or other preventative measures), then they've done as much as possible to ensure the pregnancy won't happen.
I could see IF the girl was impregnated without using protection or was impregnated while using protection but the male didn't insist on getting it reversed or getting medical attention. But if the male was responsible, and did his best to ensure the girl would not be impregnated, there is no reason he shouldn't see equal punishment as the female having sex with an underaged boy.
0
dragonsheart967 wrote...
Spoiler:
Potential Harm should not be the premise of a case of pedophilia or with a minor. My standard point here is that the harm a female child may face should not be treated differently as any harm to ANY child. Potential harm is not to be the point of a sentencing, it is the actions committed that must stand trial. A drunk driver is held for driving under the influence and is punished as such, not on the potential of killing little Timmy. Killing little Timmy will provide it's own sequence of consequences. Any harm done to the girl should be acknowledged and noted and the case should be focused on that along with the relationship itself and the fact he placed her in any form of long or short term damage.
Size is not the only thing that can cause a tear. It is most common for this to occur in aged individuals, often dying from from infection from the bacteria. But once again, we are talking about potential.
Did you not see I already said that?
The woman who conducted the study is named Michelle Elliott, and her research is quite difficult to find, considering it was hated among feminist groups. It is from that same research that she discovered that the majority of child molesters or rapists are women.
And yeah, I know that's your point, but once again, I am against the notion that a crime should be judged differently based on ones gender. It needs to be based on what was done. It is not automatically worse if it was done to a little girl as it was done to a little boy because of what could have happened. It's the equivalent of stating that any other crime done to a person should be judged differently based on their gender because of what could have happened, which as a whole is utter BS.
And no, it is not contradictory. We need to acknowledge the differences each holds, but we should not treat any other based on that gender.
Hmm...mkay.
0
...except that for young male identified survivors of rape and sexual assault, yeah NO.
I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
0
gizgal wrote...
...except that for young male identified survivors of rape and sexual assault, yeah NO.I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
We're talking about unlawful sex with minors, not rape. Adult male fooling around with female minors 13-15 doesn't seem too bad. Came across this recently.
Two studies have investigated the association between age difference and aspects of females' sexual debut. Abma and colleagues used 1995 NSFG data to examine partner age difference in the context of measuring "wantedness" of first intercourse. Their findings suggested that wantedness is inversely related to the age difference between a young woman and her partner, and that it may be related to her limited control over the situation.6 Furthermore, Leitenberg and Saltzman found that among females who had had first sexual intercourse at ages 11-12, those who had a partner five or more years their senior had an elevated risk of attempted suicide, substance abuse and pregnancy. Among females who had had first intercourse between the ages of 13 and 15, having older partners was associated only with truancy. In contrast, among females whose age at first intercourse was 16-18, having older partners was not linked to these negative outcomes. Thus, adverse effects of partner age difference may lessen as females mature.7
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3430402.html
The reversal would probably be less bad.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
gizgal wrote...
...except that for young male identified survivors of rape and sexual assault, yeah NO.I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
We're talking about unlawful sex with minors, not rape. Adult male fooling around with female minors 13-15 doesn't seem too bad. Came across this recently.
Two studies have investigated the association between age difference and aspects of females' sexual debut. Abma and colleagues used 1995 NSFG data to examine partner age difference in the context of measuring "wantedness" of first intercourse. Their findings suggested that wantedness is inversely related to the age difference between a young woman and her partner, and that it may be related to her limited control over the situation.6 Furthermore, Leitenberg and Saltzman found that among females who had had first sexual intercourse at ages 11-12, those who had a partner five or more years their senior had an elevated risk of attempted suicide, substance abuse and pregnancy. Among females who had had first intercourse between the ages of 13 and 15, having older partners was associated only with truancy. In contrast, among females whose age at first intercourse was 16-18, having older partners was not linked to these negative outcomes. Thus, adverse effects of partner age difference may lessen as females mature.7
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3430402.html
The reversal would probably be less bad.
Doubt you'll ever see a study on the reverse effects since "any young man worth his stones should be totally willing to jump on any older woman who flirts with him".
1
@ ecchigaijin:
lol, agreed
In regards to the opening statement, while I agree that a double standard exists in terms of reaction to whether the victim was male or female and there are legitimate legal and health/safety concerns as have been mentioned in to posts, My problem with that scenario is the violation that occurred by the teacher in terms of what her position of power was.
For example, in counseling, depending on the therapy being implemented, the therapist will attempt to build a relationship of trust and establish a sense of non-conditional understanding with the individual seeking therapy. However, limitations are placed so that the two individuals do not become friends or something more. The therapist has a professional and moral obligation to be conscious of his role as a therapist and not develop a dual-role (therapist and friend, or therapist and lover). Failure to meet this obligations can result in aversive and unhealthy effects (such as increased dependency via the person seeking therapy), failure of the therapy (the person seeking therapy, perceives the therapists as "cold" for trying to establish his/her status as therapist/professional after the therapists engages in inappropriate activities that portray him/her as a friend such as shopping, going out to eat etc.), loss of licence, and/or legal ramifications (if sexual intercourse took place).
While the relationship between a teacher and student is not the same as that of a therapist and client, the student is in a position of vulnerability as he/she is dependent of the teacher. The teacher enjoys a position of authority but must also fulfill the obligations of said position and establish limitations. Gender should not matter here.
lol, agreed
In regards to the opening statement, while I agree that a double standard exists in terms of reaction to whether the victim was male or female and there are legitimate legal and health/safety concerns as have been mentioned in to posts, My problem with that scenario is the violation that occurred by the teacher in terms of what her position of power was.
For example, in counseling, depending on the therapy being implemented, the therapist will attempt to build a relationship of trust and establish a sense of non-conditional understanding with the individual seeking therapy. However, limitations are placed so that the two individuals do not become friends or something more. The therapist has a professional and moral obligation to be conscious of his role as a therapist and not develop a dual-role (therapist and friend, or therapist and lover). Failure to meet this obligations can result in aversive and unhealthy effects (such as increased dependency via the person seeking therapy), failure of the therapy (the person seeking therapy, perceives the therapists as "cold" for trying to establish his/her status as therapist/professional after the therapists engages in inappropriate activities that portray him/her as a friend such as shopping, going out to eat etc.), loss of licence, and/or legal ramifications (if sexual intercourse took place).
While the relationship between a teacher and student is not the same as that of a therapist and client, the student is in a position of vulnerability as he/she is dependent of the teacher. The teacher enjoys a position of authority but must also fulfill the obligations of said position and establish limitations. Gender should not matter here.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
gizgal wrote...
...except that for young male identified survivors of rape and sexual assault, yeah NO.I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
We're talking about unlawful sex with minors, not rape. Adult male fooling around with female minors 13-15 doesn't seem too bad. Came across this recently.
Two studies have investigated the association between age difference and aspects of females' sexual debut. Abma and colleagues used 1995 NSFG data to examine partner age difference in the context of measuring "wantedness" of first intercourse. Their findings suggested that wantedness is inversely related to the age difference between a young woman and her partner, and that it may be related to her limited control over the situation.6 Furthermore, Leitenberg and Saltzman found that among females who had had first sexual intercourse at ages 11-12, those who had a partner five or more years their senior had an elevated risk of attempted suicide, substance abuse and pregnancy. Among females who had had first intercourse between the ages of 13 and 15, having older partners was associated only with truancy. In contrast, among females whose age at first intercourse was 16-18, having older partners was not linked to these negative outcomes. Thus, adverse effects of partner age difference may lessen as females mature.7
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3430402.html
The reversal would probably be less bad.
Doubt you'll ever see a study on the reverse effects since "any young man worth his stones should be totally willing to jump on any older woman who flirts with him".
Funny you should because I actually did find some data on saying that.
How do adolescent males view their sexual relationships with adult females? Some studies show that if the relationship was not forced and the female adult was not a relative, a majority of males viewed these relationships as positive (Condy et al., 1987; Okami, 1991), about a third viewed them as neutral (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987; Okami, 1991), and a minority (b5%) viewed them as negative (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987). Nonetheless, they had slightly elevated levels of psychological distress: they had slightly more psychological, alcohol, and deliberate self-harming behavior problems than men without such experiences, but they were not as distressed as those who experienced forced sexual encounters (King et al., 2003).
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV150.pdf#page14
Rather unsurprising, I'm sure we can all agree.
0
There is generally the general double standard that sex between young man and older women is treated as an accomplishment all males hope to accomplish while sex between an older male and younger female is treated as the most fucked up thing to do in the universe. Hell I believe some have tried to liken this to the extent of what hitler did. In general I think statutory rape laws should be, for the most part gone because those who fuck kids will continue to do so, regardless of what the law says and it isn't really helping those 19 year olds who got charged for fucking a 17 year old. With that said, I believe that when people become teachers, there should be, in fine print, somewhere in the contract that bans all personal contact with a student.
0
ketsuna wrote...
There is generally the general double standard that sex between young man and older women is treated as an accomplishment all males hope to accomplish while sex between an older male and younger female is treated as the most fucked up thing to do in the universe. Hell I believe some have tried to liken this to the extent of what hitler did.It has more to do with the looks of the older person than the gender. Brad Pitt, Marvin Gaye, Paul Walker, Elvis Presley, R.Kelly, Rob Lowe, Chad Michael Murray, and Mark Sanchez all dated or had sex with female teenaged minors in their 20-30s, but nobody seems to care(though people make fun of R.Kelly but only because he pissed on one). Doug Hutchison's ugly and gross ass on the other hand is pretty much demonized.
In general I think statutory rape laws should be, for the most part gone because those who fuck kids will continue to do so, regardless of what the law says and it isn't really helping those 19 year olds who got charged for fucking a 17 year old.
No, fucking a minor under 13 should be a felony, while 13-15 year olds a misdemeanor.
0
ketsuna wrote...
There is generally the general double standard that sex between young man and older women is treated as an accomplishment all males hope to accomplish while sex between an older male and younger female is treated as the most fucked up thing to do in the universe. Hell I believe some have tried to liken this to the extent of what hitler did. In general I think statutory rape laws should be, for the most part gone because those who fuck kids will continue to do so, regardless of what the law says and it isn't really helping those 19 year olds who got charged for fucking a 17 year old. With that said, I believe that when people become teachers, there should be, in fine print, somewhere in the contract that bans all personal contact with a student.^ this
0
No, fucking a minor under 13 should be a felony, while 13-15 year olds a misdemeanor
alright, since we seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding this law let's compromise. Instead of just completely dissolving the current law or completely uphold it let's change a few things. Here is my proposal:
a) Uphold that children up to age 15 will be protected indefinitely, no questions asked.
b) Allow some bit of leeway in this if both partners are consensual and they are within 1-2 years with each other.
c) Create an actual enforcement mechanism for this rather than just a "choose to report" feature.
d) sex ed should be a nationwide curriculum no questions asked (you'd be surprised how many states in the u.s. don't have this) with a section on proper safe sex.
0
ketsuna wrote...
No, fucking a minor under 13 should be a felony, while 13-15 year olds a misdemeanor
alright, since we seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding this law let's compromise. Instead of just completely dissolving the current law or completely uphold it let's change a few things. Here is my proposal:
a) Uphold that children up to age 15 will be protected indefinitely, no questions asked.
b) Allow some bit of leeway in this if both partners are consensual and they are within 1-2 years with each other.
c) Create an actual enforcement mechanism for this rather than just a "choose to report" feature.
d) sex ed should be a nationwide curriculum no questions asked (you'd be surprised how many states in the u.s. don't have this) with a section on proper safe sex.
The reason why I said that is based on studies that I have found on the subject which I already posted in this thread.
a) The age of consent should be 16.
b) Older person fucking 13, 14, and 15 year old should serve 12 months of incarceration and that's only if their behavior is obviously exploitative.
c) Obviously, non-exploitative should be punished with probation, community service, short jail term, or part-time imprisonment; served on the weekends.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
Count Alucard wrote...
gizgal wrote...
...except that for young male identified survivors of rape and sexual assault, yeah NO.I think they might tell you otherwise: they would not "wish" any of it upon them any more than their female counterparts would.
To say "Oh man, nice!/Wish it were me!/etc." so only belittles young male survivors' valid claims of abuse. For them, sex can be forever fucked up in their mind as something not to enjoy but dread.
Applauding and making light of their attackers just normalizes the notion that males can't be raped by females or males (yes, many say that term, laughing, but not many places do much about male-on-male rape in the justice system).
We're talking about unlawful sex with minors, not rape. Adult male fooling around with female minors 13-15 doesn't seem too bad. Came across this recently.
Two studies have investigated the association between age difference and aspects of females' sexual debut. Abma and colleagues used 1995 NSFG data to examine partner age difference in the context of measuring "wantedness" of first intercourse. Their findings suggested that wantedness is inversely related to the age difference between a young woman and her partner, and that it may be related to her limited control over the situation.6 Furthermore, Leitenberg and Saltzman found that among females who had had first sexual intercourse at ages 11-12, those who had a partner five or more years their senior had an elevated risk of attempted suicide, substance abuse and pregnancy. Among females who had had first intercourse between the ages of 13 and 15, having older partners was associated only with truancy. In contrast, among females whose age at first intercourse was 16-18, having older partners was not linked to these negative outcomes. Thus, adverse effects of partner age difference may lessen as females mature.7
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3430402.html
The reversal would probably be less bad.
Doubt you'll ever see a study on the reverse effects since "any young man worth his stones should be totally willing to jump on any older woman who flirts with him".
Funny you should because I actually did find some data on saying that.
How do adolescent males view their sexual relationships with adult females? Some studies show that if the relationship was not forced and the female adult was not a relative, a majority of males viewed these relationships as positive (Condy et al., 1987; Okami, 1991), about a third viewed them as neutral (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987; Okami, 1991), and a minority (b5%) viewed them as negative (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987). Nonetheless, they had slightly elevated levels of psychological distress: they had slightly more psychological, alcohol, and deliberate self-harming behavior problems than men without such experiences, but they were not as distressed as those who experienced forced sexual encounters (King et al., 2003).
http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV150.pdf#page14
Rather unsurprising, I'm sure we can all agree.
I'm sure we can rely on those results, as even to psychological professionals, no guy is going to feel comfortable negatively commenting on sex they got from an older girl. I just don't think - even with a psychiatrist - males would feel comfortable saying that. I doubt the 5% carries the weight they think it does.
Granted, it's printed and an actual study, I just think it has little to no actual value. How many studies have been done on how many people lie on stuff on anonymous surveys anyhow? Household income? No one's going to see that, and yet studies show people always push the numbers up a couple of categories. I'm sure something more embarrassing - how you felt about a sexual relationship with a woman - would garner the same kind of changes. Not saying it's 50% negative, but I sincerely doubt it's 5.
0
ecchigaijin wrote...
I'm sure we can rely on those results, as even to psychological professionals, no guy is going to feel comfortable negatively commenting on sex they got from an older girl. I just don't think - even with a psychiatrist - males would feel comfortable saying that. I doubt the 5% carries the weight they think it does.
Granted, it's printed and an actual study, I just think it has little to no actual value. How many studies have been done on how many people lie on stuff on anonymous surveys anyhow? Household income? No one's going to see that, and yet studies show people always push the numbers up a couple of categories. I'm sure something more embarrassing - how you felt about a sexual relationship with a woman - would garner the same kind of changes. Not saying it's 50% negative, but I sincerely doubt it's 5.
Considering the fact that males are pretty much meant to reproduce by 13 I think it is pretty accurate. Remember when you were 13,14, and 15 fantasizing about older women? Though results are different when it's with a person in a position of authority or so I heard.
0
Count Alucard wrote...
ecchigaijin wrote...
I'm sure we can rely on those results, as even to psychological professionals, no guy is going to feel comfortable negatively commenting on sex they got from an older girl. I just don't think - even with a psychiatrist - males would feel comfortable saying that. I doubt the 5% carries the weight they think it does.
Granted, it's printed and an actual study, I just think it has little to no actual value. How many studies have been done on how many people lie on stuff on anonymous surveys anyhow? Household income? No one's going to see that, and yet studies show people always push the numbers up a couple of categories. I'm sure something more embarrassing - how you felt about a sexual relationship with a woman - would garner the same kind of changes. Not saying it's 50% negative, but I sincerely doubt it's 5.
Considering the fact that males are pretty much meant to reproduce by 13 I think it is pretty accurate. Remember when you were 13,14, and 15 fantasizing about older women? Though results are different when it's with a person in a position of authority or so I heard.
I think its worth pointing out the study even though most men viewed it as positive,they still had elevated levels of psychological distress. Which perhaps means this is more complicated than simply loving it or hating it.
Also the study did note societal standards may make young boys unable to admit to negative repercussions from it.