Nassau Cops: PTA Mom, Boy Found Half Naked In Car

[DiveCon]

how are they different? both has an underage kid being sexually coerced by a predator adult. Just because a boy is quicker to give up the ass doesn't mean your intuition validates a double standard.

i think the difference they are trying to make here is that the boy would not only be willing, but eager as well, where as the girl might be reluctant and need to be convinced with lies

its still wrong to me in both cases

 

[catzmeow]

All fair enough to feel that way as a parent, perfectly natural. What I'm obecting to is the public fuss over this. It's like hell, the Puritans are back in town, get the branding irons out, we've found a whore, let's brand her. The criminal justice system is no place for this - this needed to be sorted out privately with the interests of the lad front and centre. The criminal justice system gets involved and it's a public fiasco.

Are you for fucking real? People need to be held before the law equally. A 44-year-old woman who fucks a 13 year old boy is just as guilty of sex crimes as a 44-year-old man who fucks a 13 year old girl.

Jesus.

 

[Agnapostate]

id have to go with the guy who said "moron"

Of course. You're as well informed on this issue as you are about the Planned Parenthood thread. The one that you didn't read and claimed that you would get back to me on 4 days ago.

Would you make that same statement if the child were a 13 year old girl being naked with a 30 something year old man? Or, for that matter, a male student with a male adult?

Already been answered for you.

For that matter, do you have something against homosexuals?

I agree with you inspite of my frivolous remarks about boys and grown women.

But though this may be a very naive question, how is it possible to rape a boy or a man? isn't consent, at least on some basic level necessary on th epart of a male victim? if, we are talking about sex where his penis is involved, anyway.

So rape between an underage boy and a woman could only be statutory.
I think there is a big difference between statutory and non statutory rape when girls and boys are involved.
It is possible to manipulate adolescents but even that is not always the caes.

Rapes of men by women do occur at times, actually. A colleague of mine was raped by two women at knifepoint, if I remember correctly. There's also been a rash of rapes of males by females in South Africa, though that may relate to some local superstition.

In the past, I've expressed my belief that rape evolved as a reproductive adaptation for males unable to mate with females in the conventional way, but that's been misrepresented as support of rape in the past, so I won't elaborate further.

It's only since about 1981 that it was believed that older women could statutorily rape young adolescent men, which is why some women are still charged with "unlawful sexual penetration of a minor" after such a consensual relationship, as the laws were initially devised with men in mind. The age of consent and statutory rape laws originated in medieval Europe as a means of granting male patriarchs control of the chastity of young, unmarried virgins, which makes it ironic that increases in the age of consent have often been pushed by feminist lobbies. If a man were to have a consensual sexual relationship with such a young virgin out of wedlock, her father could assume his patriarchal duty by having him arrested and whipped for his "sin."

Even so, the age of consent remained at the age of nine or ten, which today seems absurdly low. The increases to their current levels were largely caused by unsubstantiated moral panics that served as control mechanisms for the commissar-like propagandists that spread word of wild accounts of rape and enslavement of young women.

In Britain, the imperialist supporting journalist William Thomas Stead wrote a series of newspaper articles entitled The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon, in which he claimed that there was a widespread epidemic of forced enslavement and prostitution of young virgins. Stead's accounts were almost entirely fabricated, but regardless, they led to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 in Britain.

In the United States, a similar panic occurred over widespread rumors that there was a similar epidemic of white women being enslaved and sold as prostitutes. It was for this purpose that the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 was passed, now more commonly known as the Mann Act after the name of the lawmaker who introduced the bill. The Mann Act did not serve its stated purpose of preventing white slavery, however, and was more commonly used for two purposes: to prosecute men who had consensual relationships with underage women, and to prosecute black men who had consensual relationships with white women.

The latter purpose has since been recognized as an unjust form of discrimination, and was scrapped with other Jim Crow laws. The former purpose has not been similarly recognized as an unjust form of discrimination, and indeed, the ambiguity of the phrasing in the Act, ("Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose") has permitted the Mann Act to be used, along with other federal statutes, to prosecute individuals who cross state lines for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations with a minor under the age of 18, even if said minor was above the age of consent in his or her own respective state. (The age of consent in the majority of American states is 16.)

wow.

for real. WOW.

Wow. No response.

Kind of like that utilitarian justification for abortion tread that you couldn't respond to.

oh surely.. Sorta like how pedophiles get high fives from THEIR peers each time they fuck nubile girls.

for real, I hope you sick fucks don't vote democrat.

Is this a joke?

We're discussing the "victim" here.

In addition, this woman is not a pedophile, because as I have explained numerous times in the past, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

clearly, you are not.

He's not opposed to pederasty? Pederasty is typically used to refer to a male homosexual relationship in the manner of Zeus and Ganymede, and would thus not apply to a heterosexual relationship, but I think it likely that you have conflate it with pedophilia, which is also not a label that can be used to apply to this relationship.

According to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, "pedophilia" is "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age."

Similarly, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders sets out the following diagnostic criteria for pedophilia.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual
urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked
distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in
Criterion A.

If you're planning on bringing it up, the bit regarding the age of 13 years may be better classified as hebephilia (a sexual attraction to pubescent individuals) than pedophilia, as the average age of menarche is about 12.5, and sexual attraction to reproductive beings would by nature not be pedophilia. It should also be said that sexual interactions with a prepubescent child are not necessary for a diagnosis of pedophilia, as the term primarily refers to a sexual attraction rather than any sexual behavior. Thus, a person can be a pedophile without having had any sexual interaction with a prepubescent child, just as a person can be a heterosexual while still being a virgin. Somewhat more strangely, a person can also have a sexual interaction with a child but not necessarily meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, but merely be a situational offender.

It isn't the fact that the boy engaged in sexual activity that disturbs me so much, but the difference in ages. Anyone who is in their 40s realizes a couple of things. First, having an attraction to someone 30 years younger, a 13-year-old is not remotely healthy. People who do so are usually acting out serious mental health issues and/or issues with having power/control in a relationship.

Firstly, as to this specific case, I would think it rather obvious that a woman is unlikely to hold a physical advantage over a young adolescent man such as this one, though there are other advantages that may be held. I shall say that I also dispute the "mental" advantage, as I have posted several studies and graphs that illustrate that generally speaking, even young adolescents possess sufficient maturity and competence to offer informed consent.

My contention would be that these kinds of massive age gaps, particularly with males being substantially older than females, is definitely a factor in abuse, particularly domestic violence.

Perhaps, but I would attribute this to the general lack of financial and economic opportunity possessed by both adolescent males and females, due to the child labor laws and compulsory schooling laws that prevent them from obtaining employment opportunities, as well as their general legal inability to sign valid contracts or own property. I would say that domestic violence would not be an issue for many if young women could simply leave and support themselves financially, but that is prevented by numerous laws and restrictions imposed upon youth.

Further, there is a correlation between teenage pregnancy and relationships with significantly older men:

Planned Parenthood - Pregnancy and Childbearing Among U.S. Teens

Teenage girls with older partners are more likely to become pregnant than those with partners closer in age. A study found that 6.7 percent of women aged 15–17 have partners six or more years older than they are. The pregnancy rate for this group is 3.7 times as high as the rate for those whose partner is no more than two years older (Darroch et al., 1999).

This is true, which makes "teenage pregnancy" a misnomer in some ways. Now, I would say that these young adolescent women seek out relationships with older men due to their higher social status. Hence, if you regard that as a problem, it would be largely eliminated by enfranchising even young adolescents and granting them the opportunity to seek financial power and independence.

Even in our current state of affairs, I cannot do anything but condemn the practice of adult men who are prosecuted and imprisoned for engaging in such relationships. If teenage mothers were as bereft of socioeconomic benefits as you claim, then stripping them of a provider and partner would harm them even further.

Even when continuing such a relationship is clearly in the best interest of the younger partner involved, the authoritarian arm of the law sees fit to interfere into a consensual affair, causing nothing but harm and suffering, and inflicting a violation far more severe than any that the older partner ever did.

Former Coach Gets Year in Jail for Having Sex With Student, 14 - Los Angeles Times

Rejecting pleas of mercy from the victim and her mother, a Ventura County judge Friday sentenced a former wrestling coach at Moorpark High School to a year in jail for having sex with a 14-year-old student who is now his wife.

Andrew Fonseca, 23, must also register as a sex offender, which his attorney said will prevent him from ever teaching or coaching again.

Before sentencing, the girl’s (sic) mother pleaded for leniency.

“Andrew is living at our house, married to our daughter and he works and supports her,” the mother said. “It’s been the best thing that ever happened to her.”

Prosecutors said later they may also file misdemeanor charges against the girl’s (sic) parents for allegedly knowing about the sexual relationship and failing to contact authorities.

The punishment meted out by Judge Kevin J. McGee brought tears to the girl (sic) and visibly angered her parents, who support the marriage. The girl’s (sic) father softly uttered a stream of profanities from the back of the courtroom.

“This case is one of the most unusual that one can imagine,” McGee said.

The couple married in September, two months after the volunteer coach pleaded guilty to three felonies involving the high school student.

McGee said Fonseca had committed a serious breach of trust and that the case needed to be a deterrent to other teachers and coaches in the community.

“He violated that trust in perhaps the most egregious way possible by initiating a sexual relationship,” McGee said.

The girl (sic), now 15, began having sex with Fonseca a year ago, prosecutors said. The coach was the girl’s mentor, they said.

Fonseca will enter a work-furlough program Jan. 13 to serve the remaining 100 days of his sentence.

The girl (sic), who sat next to Fonseca in court, told McGee she loves her husband.

“I don’t feel he needs to go back to prison or jail,” she told the judge.

Do you regard that as morally acceptable?

And, the younger girls have sex, the more likely they are to experience an unplanned teen pregnancy:

Age of first sex is an important determinant of pregnancy risk. Forty-six percent of teenage girls and 22 percent of teenage boys who engage in their first sexual experience before the age of 15 have been involved in a pregnancy. For teens who engage in their first sex experience at age 15 or older, the risk declines to 25 percent and nine percent, respectively (Suellentrop & Flanigan, 2006).

This observation evidently serves to establish the assertion you next make that teenage pregnancy and childbearing is a practice that is generally detrimental. Thus, it is to that question that we next turn.

We know that this is detrimental to both mom and baby:

Only 63 percent of teenagers who give birth before the age of 18, and 74 percent of teenagers who give birth between the ages of 18 and 19 years either graduate from high school or receive their GED, as compared to approximately 85 percent of women who delay childbirth until their early twenties (Hoffman, 2006; Levin-Epstein & Schwartz, 2005).

Beyond that, numerous other studies show detrimental impacts:

By the age of 30, only five percent of young teen mothers and 10 percent of older teen mothers complete at least two years of college, and less than two percent of young teen mothers and three percent of older teen mothers obtain a college degree. Comparatively, 21 percent of women who delay childbirth complete at least two years of college, and nine percent graduate (Hoffman, 2006).

Nearly 80 percent of teen mothers receive some form of public assistance, i.e. food stamps, housing assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or WIC vouchers (Acs & Koball, 2003). Teen mothers not only receive more financial assistance, but they also receive this assistance longer than do women who delay their childbirth (Hoffman, 2006; Levin-Epstein & Schwartz, 2005).

There are several issues that must be addressed here.

The first is that of the economic disenfranchisement of minors. It is often understood that populations of minority races undergo various forms of economic disenfranchisement, and that it is warranted to provide them with benefits from certain social programs in order to address this. Yet minors undergo direct state disenfranchisement through restrictive laws, yet they are vilified for bearing children, whereas another economically disenfranchised population would not be maltreated in such a manner. Hence, the first issue to address is granting financial and economic power to youth, and as I have mentioned in the past, I have written an economics position paper for Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions, (ASFAR), to address this very issue. Here it is again, so that we're all on the same page.

Perhaps one of the greatest objections to youth liberation is that regarding parental rights and responsibilities. The argument essentially goes that since parents are financially and legally responsible for many of the consequences of the actions of youth that they have guardianship over, it only follows that they should have control over the rights and actions of their offspring. This objection to youth liberation is a powerful one, but it fails to take into account an essential factor. The reason that youth are not capable of taking care of themselves, the reason that the parental objection of “while you’re under my roof, you’ll obey my rules” even works is because youth suffer from a condition of financial disenfranchisement. They are not permitted to be financially self-sufficient. In fact, financial self-sufficiency among youth is prohibited through a combination of child labor and compulsory schooling laws.

The unfortunate reality is that most older youth, particularly adolescents, are not in a state of natural dependency (as they are biological adults, and it is biologically natural for biological adults to be independent) but in a state of forced dependency. If a man were to lock his son inside the house, and then came home and complained that the son had not gone outside all day, what would we think of such a man? Would we think that he makes a valid point here? It is unlikely that any reasonable person would! We can apply the same standard to the issue of forced dependency and parental complaints about it. (Although we must recognize the fact that most individual parents are not personally responsible for the existence of prohibitive restrictions on youth labor. Hence, their position is roughly equivalent to the mother of the son in the analogy who does not personally participate in locking the son inside the house, but still comes home and complains about the fact that he did not go outside.)

The youth right to economic power is a rather broad topic that will need to be divided into several components. Primarily, we will examine the impact of child labor laws, as well as a brief look at the compulsory schooling laws that they go hand in hand with. (For a fuller analysis of compulsory schooling laws, be sure to see our Education Position Paper.)

An examination of laws forbidding youth to hold property or finances will also be necessary to our analysis.

Primarily, we will analyze the impact of child labor laws as they relate to youth and greater society. Most people are of the opinion that child labor laws (the central restrictive policies, with compulsory schooling laws playing a somewhat secondary role) are necessary for several reasons.

That they protect children and youth from unsafe working conditions. This is far from the truth. In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions are no longer the norm, and rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. Numerous benefits available through the formal economy, such as healthcare plans, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave also serve to provide humane conditions for workers.

In fact, child labor laws may accomplish the exact opposite of this stated reason for them. By prohibiting youth from working in the formal economy, child labor laws push youth who are desperate to work into the informal economy, which lacks workplace regulations, safety codes, a minimum wage, and other benefits of the formal economy. For instance, instead of working in a retail position, a young person may be forced to undertake arduous and difficult physical labor. (It is technically illegal for persons under 18 to perform difficult manual labor, but this rule is largely ignored in the informal economy. And this law brings up another interesting point. In light of the biological differences between men and women, does it hold that a 17 year old man should be prohibited from working in construction, for instance, but that an 18 year old woman should not, even though the former is likely stronger than the latter?)

More ominously, many youth desperate to escape poor home conditions and parents who exercise their government-given rights to apply corporal punishment to their offspring, may engage in forms of work that are actually illegal, such as selling drugs or prostitution. To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, they may sink deep into a criminal underworld, participating in such activities that are necessitated by the prohibitions on them getting a safer, legal job.

Now what of the case of third-world countries that would place children and youth into poor working conditions? (Of course, poor working conditions for youth, as well as for adults, exist in industrialized countries also, but they are more prevalent in developing countries.) Obviously, we are primarily focused on policy change in America, but this is a valid issue that must be addressed. There is no denying that children and youth in many third-world countries are subjected to poor working conditions, but are they really so much worse off than the adult laborers at their side?

Perhaps opponents of child labor can more effectively channel their zeal for humane working conditions in demanding humane working conditions for all third-world workers, rather than just one age group.

Moreover, however well-intentioned anti-child labor activists may be, the consequences of their actions are not as pleasant as they might intend. After the implementation of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in the U.S., which was introduced with the purpose of, “prohibit[ing] the importation of goods produced abroad with child labor and for other purposes...,” about 50,000 Bangladeshi children and youth lost their jobs in the garment industry, according to a UNICEF study.[1] The study goes on to state that the youth were forced into labor positions “more hazardous and exploitative than garment production,” such as “stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution.” The study states that boycotts and legislation against child labor are “blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved.” This study further illustrates the fact that protectionist attempts to “end” child labor may in fact do the exact opposite. We mentioned the fact that child labor laws in the U.S. force youth into more dangerous and unregulated forms of employment, and this further proves our point.

(It is important to note that citation of this study does not imply endorsement or support of the suggested policies stated within. For instance, the analysis states that “UNICEF advocates a comprehensive strategy that supports and develops local initiatives and provides alternatives-notably compulsory primary education of high quality-for liberated children.” Firstly, it is necessary to note that compulsory “education” is a contradiction in terms, as has been pointed out by youth rights theorist Richard Farson. True education comes from free choice, not from coercion. As to compulsory schooling, which is what the UNICEF analysis promotes, it is an unjustly coercive form of indoctrination, as we have covered in our Education position paper. It does not promote the well-being of “liberated children,” as UNICEF claims. It does just the opposite. ASFAR does not endorse or support this recommendation made by UNICEF.)

That they prevent incompetent youth from “getting in over their heads.” Ironically enough, the exact opposite of the stated effect of child labor laws is typically achieved in this instance also. Incompetence and inability is bred through a lack of training and experience, which is promoted by child labor laws. A common complaint among adults and anti-youth bigots is that modern youth are lazy and apathetic. We should return to the father-son analogy in this instance, and ask how youth can honestly be called lazy and apathetic when they are in a state of forced dependency and are prohibited from working. (Or seeking meaningful work, for that matter.)

Lack of economic opportunity and work experience deprives youth of the potential for responsibility and self-management. If anyone wishes to complain about the apathy, laziness, or other similar negative quality of modern youth, they must first consider the lack of opportunity that has been offered them.

Hence, a lack of opportunity for employment experience breeds the very incompetence that child labor laws are intended to prevent, and this is another instance of them achieving the exact opposite of their stated effect. This is a case where the medicine causes the illness.

That youth will leave school en masse if child labor (and by extension, compulsory schooling laws) are abolished. This problem is easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance. The majority opinion holds that youth are not competent persons capable of making an informed decision about leaving school and working. Assuming this was true, they could simply return to school later if there were no age limits on school attendance, and continue where they left off. But the fact of the matter is that this so-called “incompetence” and inability to make an informed decision is caused by the very school system intended to safeguard youth from the consequences of their “ignorance.” This is another case of the medicine causing the sickness.

Because a hierarchical, authoritarian environment is not conducive to learning or education, school typically cripples the mental capacities of students who go through its gates rather than expanding them. Attaining work experience outside of school would likely enable youth to make more informed and responsible decisions, as they would be exposed to the realities of labor and “adult life” to a greater degree than the pseudo-intellectual environment of school could ever facilitate. Ultimately, this boils down to the issue of whether one prefers schooling or education.
When re-analyzed, we can see no compelling reason to retain child labor laws, as they are repressive and unnecessary, and every reason to abandon them in favor of a more enlightened standard.

We must next examine the issue of financial freedom for youth, and their right to own property and money, as well as manage their finances free from external restraint. We must again rebut several myths that are woefully prevalent in the minds of the general public in this phase. They are as follows:

That youth will squander or waste money if they are permitted to manage it independently. It is first necessary to recognize the fact that in their current disenfranchised state, youth have very little money. Thus, it’s somewhat pointless to argue that they would bring financial ruin or catastrophe upon themselves by wasting what little money they do have. It would be far more damaging if their parents or guardians were to squander their money, for the greater amount of money that their parents possess is intended to pay for things of greater moral significance, such as food and shelter, than whatever cheap tokens youth are able to afford with the measly few dollars Uncle Sam allows them to have.

But if our campaign to grant youth economic power is to be successful, then this is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. So how would youth be prevented from squandering their money on petty or trivial things? The fundamental necessity is that whatever “prevention” exists will not be one of force or coercion, but one of persuasion or education. Adults are not prevented from spending themselves into financial ruin, because they have been educated to understand the consequences of wasteful spending.

In this matter, we agree with the philosopher John Stuart Mill when he declared that “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. Those are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."[2]

If youth are educated as to matters of financial prudence from a very young age, they will be able to manage finances to some extent while still young children, and will be fully capable of managing their own finances independently as they enter adolescence. Ultimately, this bar may be pushed back even further, as youth are further liberated.

A Biblical proverb confirms the soundness of our policy: “Train up a child in the way he will go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
-Proverbs 22:6

The fundamental key here is education, not coercion. Instead of being taught that “a penny saved is a penny earned,” young children are commissioned to watch the latest Disney release. There is nothing inherently wrong with recreational activities for young children, but oftentimes, they are infantilized through exposure to primitive elements rather than more advanced elements. This is largely responsible for the very “immaturity” parents and caretakers aim to prevent.
In light of this, we of ASFAR recommend the institution of several policies to combat the disenfranchisement of youth in the American economy.

Repealing child labor laws. This is obviously not to suggest that young toddlers should be in the habit of performing arduous physical labor. This merely recognizes the reality that an arbitrary line in the sand cannot determine the competence of individual workers. Economic liberty will allow youth to take control of their own lives in a responsible and self-sufficient manner. We also call for the elimination of legal restrictions that mandate that older teenagers’ hours be limited or dependent on school attendance. What measly jobs do exist for older youths are typically not sufficient (in terms of wages) to grant them economic liberty precisely because of these restrictions.

Repealing compulsory schooling laws. We elaborate on the need for this further in our Education position paper, but the fundamental reality is that laws that mandate that youth be in school during the day obviously interfere with their ability to hold a job, and thus it is necessary to eliminate such laws.

Eliminating restrictions on youths owning and possessing property and finances. Youth must be permitted to hold bank accounts and other finances if they are to receive true economic liberty. As long as parents and legislators lament the laziness of youth and their financial dependence, we are certain that they will be just as willing to promote the economic liberty of youth, and the ability to own finances and purchase property is an essential component of that economic liberty.

All in all, we intend to promote economic liberty for youth in order to uphold the necessary responsibility that comes with civil rights. Since the ageist establishment frequently points to youths’ financial dependence on their parents and guardians as a fundamental impediment to their liberation, we hope that they will join us in promoting economic liberty for youth and welcome them wholeheartedly in doing so. Through youth’s reception of economic liberty, they will be one step closer towards the more humane, just society promised by liberation.

[1 ]“The State of the World’s Children 1997.” UNICEF-This study can be accessed online at UNICEF State of the World's Children 1997 - Summary.

[2]”On Liberty” John Stuart Mill-(In the name of intellectual and academic honesty, we must acknowledge that Mill did not consider youth to be worthy of self-governance, as he stated several paragraphs later. However, we believe that Mill was mistaken on this issue. He did not take into account the effects of repressive environmental factors as opposed to natural law on the maturity and competence of children and youth. Immediately after, he also claims that libertarian doctrines should not apply to “backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as its nonage.” Clearly, Mill did not analyze environmental factors to a sufficient extent in his analyses of minority populations.)

Hence, we have seen that, to the extent that there are socioeconomic problems related to teenage pregnancy, they would be alleviated through the financial and economic empowerment of youth. But I still dispute that such problems exist to a very great extent in the first place, and have more to do with socioeconomic status than with age.

Many studies on teenage pregnancy and childbearing commit several critical methodological errors in that they fail to measure external environmental factors of different women who gave birth in their teenage years, one of the most critical of these being their family background. Researchers Geronimus and Korenman have conducted an analysis of the available data without committing this critical error, and thus find that the the "costs" of teenage childbearing are drastically overstated.

The Socioeconomic Costs of Teen Childbearing Reconsidered

Teen childbearing is commonly belied to cause long-term socioeconomic disadvantages for mothers and their children. However, earlier cross-sectional studies may have inadequately accounted for marked differences in family backgrounds among women who have first births at different ages. We present new estimates that take into account unmeasured family background heterogeneity by comparing sisters who timed their first births at different ages. In two of the three data sets we examine, sister comparisons suggest that biases from family background heterogeneity are important, and, therefore, that earlier studies may have overstated the consequences of teen childbearing.

Saul Hoffman is a researcher for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and is thus not unbiased. There is a specific ideological agenda concerning financial gain for the National Campaign. (As well as their continued existence, for prevention of teenage pregnancy would not appear such a commendable option if the negative effects they claimed it caused did not exist.) Regardless, Hoffman's study did contain a note about an interesting study conducted for the federal white paper, Kids Having Kids, that did not fall into the trap of committing several methodological errors of the nature that the studies that you cited do.

In Kids Having Kids, (my note: this is an oxymoron) researchers Hotz, Sanders, and McElroy used a new and innovative research approach that potentially controls for individual risk factors that cannot be directly measured and that can potentially lead to misleading (biased) estimates of the impact of a mother’s age at birth. This new approach used a “natural experiment”—that is, a group of women who became pregnant and had a birth as a teen are compared to a group of women who became pregnant as a teen but had a miscarriage—as a way to approximate the results of a random assignment to having a teen birth. While there are concerns about sample sizes and other related measurement issues in this particular application, the Hotz et al. approach has substantial value in measuring true causal impacts… and its results have become the research standard at this point and they are used here for that reason (pp 20, 22).

Hotz et al. was not initially used by Hoffman because of a coding error that has since been corrected. Yet while reviewing Hotz et al., it is curious to note that their study goes even further than that of Geronimus and Korenman in rebutting the claims that teenage pregnancy is a cause of numerous socioeconomic problems. In fact, Hotz et al. found the precise opposite to be true.

Our major finding is that many of the apparent negative consequences of teenage child bearing on the subsequent socioeconomic attainment of teen mothers are much smaller than those found in studies that use alternative methodologies to identify the causal effects of teenage childbearing. We also find evidence that teenage mothers earn more in the labor market at older ages than they would have earned if they had delayed their births.

This point is emphasized and re-emphasized repeatedly, highlighting just how great a contradiction of the "usual wisdom" it is, and how woefully inadequate that "usual wisdom" becomes when methodological errors used to find it are uncovered.

Our results suggest that much of the “concern” that has been registered regarding teenage childbearing is misplaced, at least based on its consequences for the subsequent educational and economic attainment of teen mothers. In particular, our estimates imply that the “poor” outcomes attained by such women cannot be attributed, in a causal sense, primarily to their decision to begin their childbearing at an early age. Rather, it appears that these outcomes are more the result of social and economic circumstances than they are the result of the early childbearing of these women. Furthermore, our estimates suggest that simply delaying their childbearing would not greatly enhance their educational attainment or subsequent earnings or affect their family structure… For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. For annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing.

They determine that teenage childbearing can be a viable economic strategy for many.

Concentrating their childbearing at early ages may prove to be more compatible with their labor market career options than postponing their childbearing to older ages would be…The magnitudes of these estimated effects of teenage childbearing on subsequent labor market earnings are sizeable. Over the ages of 21 through 35, teen mothers earned an average $7,917 per year (in 1994 dollars). Based on the “All Covariates” estimates in Table 6, teen mothers would have earned an average of 31 percent less per year if they had delayed their childbearing.

It is also critical to note that because of the innovative research method that it uses, Hotz et al. does not fall prey to the numerous methodological issues mentioned by Geronimus and Korenman.

In this study, we have used an alternative and innovative strategy to estimate the causal effects associated with teenage childbearing in the U.S. In particular, we have focused on women who first become pregnant as teenagers and employ a natural experiment to obtain a more comparable,and plausible, comparison group with which to derive estimates of counterfactual outcomes for teen mothers. Our results suggest that much of the “concern” that has been registered regarding teenage childbearing is misplaced, at least based on its consequences for the subsequent educational and economic attainment of teen mothers. In particular, our estimates imply that the “poor” outcomes attained by such women cannot be attributed, in a causal sense, primarily to their decision to begin their childbearing at an early age. Rather, it appears that these outcomes are more the result of social and economic circumstances than they are the result of the early childbearing of these women. Furthermore, our estimates suggest that simply delaying their childbearing would not greatly enhance their educational attainment or subsequent earnings or affect their family structure.

Hence, I would question the veracity of the "studies" typically released in regards to the "effects" of teenage pregnancy.

Two opinions come to mind for me when reading this story. Two serious opinions.

First, I never understood this. I never understood a male or female going after a teenager. Second, the woman needs to be punished to the full extent of the law. True, sadly many 12 year olds do experiment with sex and engage in many sexual acts, but, there is a huge difference between two kids that age, as opposed to one of them being an adult. I doubt we have heard the entire story hear and we may never hear it. That would be the kids thoughts. Not what he is telling people, but, his real thoughts.

I do believe we have heard his real thoughts if his real thoughts are indicated by the fact that he was willingly duplicitous to the authorities, clearly indicating that he had some desire to hide what he considered a consensual relationship. Do you believe that his clear willingness to engage in this relationship is not valid, or that individuals of his age group cannot offer valid consent to such a relationship?

Consider the words of Vili Fualaau, the young lover of Mary Kay Letourneau, who first engaged in a sexual relationship with her when he was 12 and she 34, from which a child resulted. "Mary didn't take away my childhood. I gave it away by consent. I knew what I was getting into. She knew what we were getting into. I don't feel one bit in my whole entire body that she ever raped me. I don't love her because she's 30 years old and she doesn't love me because I'm 15 years old. We love each other for who we are. "Do I plan to marry her? Yes, I plan to marry her. She's my world, she's my life, and they all know that I have her ring on still, and it's never going to change." (Student Teacher Sexual Relations) They later had another child when he was 15 or so, and the two are now happily married and raising their children together. Was she a "rapist" and he her "victim"?

Kids that age have a normal progression of sexuality. There is no way that having a sexual relationship with someone several years older isn't going to fuck that up.

Indeed? Would that hold true for Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau, now happily married and raising their children? Hasn't their relationship worked out better than that of almost 50% of the country?

but do you think the girl having sex with the 40 year old PTA head thinks she is being taken advantage of by this guy?

I seriously doubt that the 13 year old girl would think such either....

this is why they are called adolescents, they are not fully aware....no?

care

Is that so? What of the evidence that I have provided in this thread that that is not the case?

 

[Agnapostate]

Are you for fucking real? People need to be held before the law equally. A 44-year-old woman who fucks a 13 year old boy is just as guilty of sex crimes as a 44-year-old man who fucks a 13 year old girl.

Jesus.

He's quite obviously referring to the ethical aspect rather than the legal aspect. Support for his double standard may come from the fact that there are legitimate sociobiological reasons for females regarding sexual interactions primarily as romantic and emotional, and males primarily as physical, and there would thus be a lower probability that a male would be psychologically damaged from the aftermath of a negative sexual relationship than a female.

There's also the fact that adolescent males are likely to be more physically powerful than adult females.

 

[Diuretic]

Are you for fucking real? People need to be held before the law equally. A 44-year-old woman who fucks a 13 year old boy is just as guilty of sex crimes as a 44-year-old man who fucks a 13 year old girl.

Jesus.

I couldn't be more real if I tried. Yes, in the black letter of the law gender doesn't make any difference, but I'd like to see the sentencing tariff and see if the sentence is the same where the perpetrator is male and the victim female and those where the perpetrator was female and the victim male.

I still haven't changed my view though - male/female is deserving of condemnation, female/male isn't and in this instance it should have been a private matter and not one for the criminal justice system.

 

[DiveCon]

I couldn't be more real if I tried. Yes, in the black letter of the law gender doesn't make any difference, but I'd like to see the sentencing tariff and see if the sentence is the same where the perpetrator is male and the victim female and those where the perpetrator was female and the victim male.

I still haven't changed my view though - male/female is deserving of condemnation, female/male isn't and in this instance it should have been a private matter and not one for the criminal justice system.

so, would you support lowering the age of consent to 13?
just for boys, or for both
and if so, would you also support this for male/male/ and female/female situations?

 

[Agnapostate]

so, would you support lowering the age of consent to 13?
just for boys, or for both
and if so, would you also support this for male/male/ and female/female situations?

That would be a commendable step, though it's likely not one that will occur anytime in the near future.

 

[Diuretic]

so, would you support lowering the age of consent to 13?
just for boys, or for both
and if so, would you also support this for male/male/ and female/female situations?

13? No, not for boys or girls. And not for homosexual relationships. The age of consent where I am is 17 and that's probably too high, maybe 16 would be appropriate but I'd be reluctant to see it lower than 16.

 

[alan1]

Obviously hubby wasn't a stallion in the sack if she's looking elsewhere...

Really?
Is that the only conclusion that can be drawn?

 

[DiveCon]

13? No, not for boys or girls. And not for homosexual relationships. The age of consent where I am is 17 and that's probably too high, maybe 16 would be appropriate but I'd be reluctant to see it lower than 16.

so then you are admitting that someone of 13 years of age isn't old enough to give consent, thus this conduct was NOT consensual

 

[Shogun]

Stupid fucking moron. Not all such cases are classified as "statutory rape," and even if they were, I was addressing the ethical aspect of the issue.

Thus, your little sign is inaccurate on the grounds that not all such cases are prosecuted as "statutory rape," and on the grounds that it does not consider close-in-age exemptions, or the fact that the age of consent is 16 in the majority of American states.

yea, whatever you say, you fucking weirdo. I hope you don't regularly come into contact with kids. Pun intended.

Go ahead and add whatever clarification you need to. Your ambivalence towards sexual predators pretty much says all there is to say about your sick fucking mind.

 

[Agnapostate]

yea, whatever you say, you fucking weirdo. I hope you don't regularly come into contact with kids. Pun intended.

Go ahead and add whatever clarification you need to. Your ambivalence towards sexual predators pretty much says all there is to say about your sick fucking mind.

Hey, like I said, get Chris Hansen over here post haste!

Idiot.

 

[Shogun]

in your case, buddy, it would probably be a good idea to rev up the amber alert system every time you buy mikes hard lemonade.


sick fucker.

 

[Diuretic]

so then you are admitting that someone of 13 years of age isn't old enough to give consent, thus this conduct was NOT consensual

Of course his conduct was consensual. I said before - a bit tongue in cheek - that there was no evidence she kidnapped him and forced him to get his gear off with her. He did, in fact, consent to the behaviour. Now, did he do so in accord with the black letter of the law? No, because the law doesn't give him the ability to consent. That's a legal procedural issue. It's presumed that a 13 year old can't consent to sexual behaviour. The reality is different.

It would be the same for a 13 year old girl. She could consent in reality but not in law. This is a blanket protection for adolescents and children from sexually mature adults. I have no problem with the law regarding a minimum age of sexual consent, I think it's good law. My problem with this case is the reaction to the circumstances.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course his conduct was consensual. I said before - a bit tongue in cheek - that there was no evidence she kidnapped him and forced him to get his gear off with her. He did, in fact, consent to the behaviour. Now, did he do so in accord with the black letter of the law? No, because the law doesn't give him the ability to consent. That's a legal procedural issue. It's presumed that a 13 year old can't consent to sexual behaviour. The reality is different.

It would be the same for a 13 year old girl. She could consent in reality but not in law. This is a blanket protection for adolescents and children from sexually mature adults. I have no problem with the law regarding a minimum age of sexual consent, I think it's good law. My problem with this case is the reaction to the circumstances.

no, a 13 year old CANT give consent
so it was NOT consensual

 

[catzmeow]

This is true, which makes "teenage pregnancy" a misnomer in some ways. Now, I would say that these young adolescent women seek out relationships with older men due to their higher social status. Hence, if you regard that as a problem, it would be largely eliminated by enfranchising even young adolescents and granting them the opportunity to seek financial power and independence.

The best way for women to seek financial power and attain independence is through attaining advanced education. Education is the great financial equalizer for women and men, and women who graduated with bachelor's degrees living in major U.S. cities are currently out earning their male peers.

Even in our current state of affairs, I cannot do anything but condemn the practice of adult men who are prosecuted and imprisoned for engaging in such relationships. If teenage mothers were as bereft of socioeconomic benefits as you claim, then stripping them of a provider and partner would harm them even further.

Best of all is to keep older men from engaging in predatory sexual relationships with them, recognizing that such men are often serial offenders. SO, by removing one man from contact with a girl, we are often removing him from victimizing several others.

Former Coach Gets Year in Jail for Having Sex With Student, 14 - Los Angeles Times

How old was the girl when intercourse occurred? Exactly why do you think it is appropriate for a 22 year old man to have sex with a 12-year-old girl?
Do you regard that as morally acceptable?

Teen Girls Are Easy Prey for Over-20 Predators | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET

The study further found that men older than 20 also father five times more births among junior-high-school girls than do junior-high-school boys.

For girls in junior high, the father is on average 6.5 years older. When the mother is 12 years old or younger, the father averages 22. Most of these older fathers abandon their "used girls" like so many vessels of spoiled meat after getting them pregnant.

"These studies highlight the problem that a substantial portion of teenage sexual activity is more a matter of manipulation, coercion or abuse than anything else," wrote Joe S. McIlhaney, gynecologist and expert on sexually transmitted diseases, in Insight (Sept. 29, 1997).

Regarding your source on the negative impacts of pregnancies on teens, it's been updated. Here is a taste:

Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders’ re-analyses support the basic findings of their chapter in the first edition of Kids Having Kids, although most effects are slightly weaker than reported in 1997. The authors continue to conclude that adolescent childbearing is not an important causal factor in the poorer adult outcomes of women who were teen mothers.

In part 2 of this chapter, Hoffman further updates Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders’ analysis using data through 2000, when all the young women were in their mid-30s. His analyses of data for the same period as Hotz and colleagues yields findings roughly consistent with theirs, although Hoffman’s findings are typically less positive and, in the case of postsecondary schooling, quite negative.

Importantly, these conclusions are based most heavily on the experience of women in the sample who entered their teen years in the early 1970s, because only these mothers had reached their mid-30s in the timeframe included in the analyses of Hotz, McElroy and Sanders. With the addition of the longer-term follow-up data for the sample members who entered their teens in the mid- to late 1970s, Hoffman finds weaker positive effects than Hotz and colleagues and some stronger negative effects.

Hoffman also finds some tentative evidence that the effects of a teen birth may be becoming more negative. He examines teen birth impacts separately for earlier and later cohorts of teen mothers in order to reconcile the differences in the findings between his sample and that used by Hotz, McElroy and Sanders. Across the full range of outcomes examined, Hoffman finds evidence that the effects of an early teen birth differ for the earlier and later cohorts of teen mothers. The positive or benign effects found by Hotz and colleagues hold only for the older cohorts, while the effects are far more negative for the younger cohorts. However, because these estimates are based on relatively small samples and have large associated standard errors, this analysis should be interpreted conservatively.

UI Press | Kids Having Kids | Chapter One

Research is fun.

 

[Amanda]

OMG you guys are funny.

 

[Anguille]

OMG you guys are funny.

They are. Yet still no one has explained to me how a woman can forcibly rape a man. Agna says his collegue was raped by two armed women but I still don't know how they made him get a stiffie!!!!!!

A man's brain is in his penis, right? So if he gets hard it's like sayng yes, IMWO.

Can men get wood without a will?

 

[Agnapostate]

They are. Yet still no one has explained to me how a woman can forcibly rape a man. Agna says his collegue was raped by two armed women but I still don't know how they made him get a stiffie!!!!!!

A man's brain is in his penis, right? So if he gets hard it's like sayng yes, IMWO.

Can men get wood without a will?

Yeah, it can be involuntary.

 

[Amanda]

Can men get wood without a will?

I think they probably can, especially the younger ones. But that doesn't make any of this any less funny to sit back and read.