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

[DiveCon]

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?

why dont you test this
ask your man to try to not get stiff while you try to make him
see what happens

 

[Agnapostate]

why dont you test this
ask your man to try to not get stiff while you try to make him
see what happens

I'm guessing you've tried it before, huh?

 

[Anguille]

why dont you test this
ask your man to try to not get stiff while you try to make him
see what happens

Sure, but if I tell him you suggested this he may come looking for you on this board.
Anyway, there would be no fear involved and not the same as a rape with force or violence involved. I guess it's different with men. I seriously doubt I would be in the least bit involuntarily aroused by the prospect of actually being raped.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm guessing you've tried it before, huh?

no, but common sense tells me if you stimulate the right areas the body will respond
but i can see how you wouldnt understand that since you've shown you lack common sense

 

[PoliticalChic]

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, I don't get it either. How can this happen unless a guy wills it? Can someone explain the phsyiological phenomenon.

 

[Anguille]

Yeah, I don't get it either. How can this happen unless a guy wills it? Can someone explain the phsyiological phenomenon.

I always thought fear made their balls shrivel up?

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

Your extremely selective quotations, (ignoring the Letourneau-Fualaau relationship, for instance), have ignored the fact that I was not referring to women in general, nor even to adolescent women in general, but to youth in general. This was why the precise agenda that I advocated involves the financial and economic empowerment of youth as a whole, not simply women, which was why I posted the position paper in question. My hypothesis was that youth would be more capable of avoiding violence by romantic partners if they were capable of financial self-sufficiency, which is why I favor granting them the right to pursue it. The same is true for violence committed against them by parents or guardians, which is rarely reported by the media. As a Floridian, what are your thoughts on the fact that a "beating video" of an isolated incident made national headlines, while the multitude of parental assaults on youth do not?

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 (sic), we are often removing him from victimizing several others.

You simply beg the question here in assuming that all here regard such relationships as a form of abusive predation. I have already stated that I do not, and have posted a wide assortment of studies and graphs indicating that even young adolescents possessed competence and maturity levels on par with those of adults. You have not addressed these. You elaborate on why you believe such relationships are abuseive later on, and it shall be addressed at that point.

How old was the girl (sic) 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? (sic) Do you regard that as morally acceptable?

You have not answered my question. Regardless..."12"? She was 14, not 12. Whether I personally believe that such a relationship is "appropriate" or not is irrelevant, so much as I believe that it is an authoritarian intrusion for the state to commit that inflicted more harm and suffering than it prevented. Do you deny that that is what occurred in this case?

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

This continues to simply beg the question on the issue of "abusive" relationships, and does not consider whether they are related more to socioeconomic status than to age. I will openly declare my belief that it has far more relation to the former than to the latter. The same is true for teenage dating intimacy violence in general.

Recent surveys do not find teens uniquely at risk. The Intimate Partner Violence survey finds that in the most recent five years, 2001-05, teens age 16-19 had lower rates of intimate-partner violence (3.4%) than adults age 20-24 (6.5%) and 25-34 (4.7%) and somewhat above adults age 35-49 (2.8%), while 12-15-year-olds experienced the lowest levels of dating violence (0.9%) of any age except 65 and older (less than 0.1%). Given that intimate partner violence rises sharply as socioeconomic status falls and that teenagers and young adults suffer considerably higher rates of poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage than older adults, teens appear to experience fairly low rates of intimate partner violence for their demographics.

By ignoring the fundamental factor of whether such intimacy violence is related more to socioeconomic circumstances than age, this analysis ignores a very fundamental circumstance, which is yet another critical methodological error.

I also notice that your article contains quotations from Dr. Joe McIlhaney, a prominent member of the Christian Right with about as much scientific validity as James Dobson. The man may be a gynecologist, but like those of Dr. Dobson, his views contain no scientific basis and are essentially religious in nature. For instance, he believes that condoms are ineffective and shouldn't be used.

Don't know if you watch Mike and Juliet, but if you do, McIlhaney was in a debate with Dr. Robert Epstein, the psychologist who supports my perspective. If you'd care to watch, here's the piece that M&J had. Dr. Joe McIlhaney vs. Dr. Robert Epstein

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.

Um...I was aware of this quite a while ago, which is why I mentioned the initial coding error and the fact that Hoffman is not an unbiased researcher, as he represents the National Campaign. Also, 1994 and forward was the beginning of the "welfare reform" era in which deliberate policy decisions were made to punish unwed mothers economically and to force families off of welfare whether or not jobs were available to them. Official decisions in the 1990's to make a group poorer because of their teenage motherhood do not show that teenage motherhood itself was a bad economic decision. Even if true (and it may not be), it also does not explain why there are significant differences between the pre-1993 and post-1993 groups if teenage motherhood was the reason for their poverty. Hence, Hoffman's "analysis" again commits a critical methodological error in not noting the dramatic environmental alterations in the socioeconomic conditions of many of these mothers caused by the "welfare reform" of the 1990's.

I also note that you have ignored Geronimus and Korenman's study, which would have aided you in identifying the external environmental factors that Hoffman fails to consider, as well as Hotz et al's 2005 study, which shows (after the coding error is corrected) that teen mothers still do economically better in the long run than mothers who wait until 20 or older.

So research is indeed fun, as is accuracy.

Yet, studies so often contain flagrant and critical methodological flaws in the samples they analyze, leading them to false conclusions about specific samples that are analyzed because they do not care to differentiate between the varying external environmental factors that exist among study subjects.

Dr. Mike Males frequently analyzes this phenomenon, and in addition to doing so, has analyzed the data presented in Hotz et al. (And he notes the coding error, and the fact that Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders released a revised version in 2005, so there's no need to continue yammering on about that.)

Welcome to YouthFacts.org - Know the Facts, Think Differently...

If we update Hotz’s estimates to 2007 dollars and apply them to California teen birth trends, a surprising result indeed ensues. Rates of births by mothers under age 18 declined by 54% from 1991 to 2005, occasioning loud self-congratulation by various “teen pregnancy” prevention lobbies led by the Public Health Institute. Indeed, these lobbies, based on several “studies” by PHI and others that can only be called fraudulent, claimed teen mothers cost California taxpayers several billion dollars per year. They further claimed, without evidence, that their programs caused the decline in births by teen mothers and saved taxpayers money, meriting more funding for prevention lobbies.

Thus—if “teen pregnancy prevention” programs actually are responsible for the reduction in teen births as they claim—then their efforts cost poorer younger mothers nearly $72 million in income and the state of California nearly $4 million in tax revenues in 2005. If the costs of the reduced teen births are apportioned over the entire 1991-2005 period, teen birth prevention has cost young mothers over $280,000,000 in income and the state $15 million in income and sales tax revenues in 2007 dollars.

Having undertaken this exercise, it is highly unlikely that the above analysis is an accurate reflection of the economics of teenage motherhoods, even if it is more so than the absurdly biased “social cost” studies claiming billions of dollars in costs. Calculating social costs is so complicated and subject to arbitrary rigging in favor of desired results that applying it selectively to teenage mothers amounts to a hatchet job.

For a final example, look at the one “social cost” cited by Hoffman’s study that Hotz et al. did not evaluate: the $2.1 billion in annual prison costs supposedly generated by the children of teenage mothers committing more crime than those born to older mothers—which works out to around $330 per teen-mother offspring. Put aside for the moment racial or economic biases in the criminal justice system that could lead to greater incarceration of the poorest black and Latino youth and focus on the bias inherent in only tabulating prison costs.

Prison costs are only a fraction of the total costs of crime. Suppose Hoffman had used instead the total cost to the economy of crime? In 1997, Chamber of Commerce tabulations showed white-collar (mostly corporate) crime cost the economy $338 billion; estimates for 2002 range up to $600 billion. Meanwhile, all street crime (robberies, thefts, burglaries) cost around $20 billion per year. Assume that all street crime is committed by black and Latino offenders (though some is by whites), and all corporate crime is committed by white offenders (though a scattering involve nonwhites). Assuming both are constant costs that will persist into the future, divide the annual cost of corporate crime for a year (say, 1997) by the number of white babies born that year (the future’s corporate criminals) and the costs of street crime by the number of black and Latino babies born that year. Then, as is done for teenage mothers, apply collective guilt: that is, assign the costs to the entire cohort.

One could conclude from this “social costs of crime” analysis that each white baby born represents an annual cost 13 times higher than for each black or Latino baby born. Therefore, preventing white people—particularly the over-25, more affluent classes most likely to generate corporate criminals—from having babies should be a national priority. Note that these total-crime costs dwarf the paltry $330 in annual imprisonment costs alone attributed to children of teenage mothers.

Further, what about the “social costs” of the much higher rates of resource consumption and pollution (the “ecological footprint”) generated by more affluent classes, resulting in more illnesses, deaths, and higher costs of goods and services? Clearly, a child born to affluent, older parent is far more socially costly to the environment than a child born to a poorer teenager. Similarly, what about the “social benefits” of the fact that poorer people provide labor at lower wages (reducing the costs of goods and services to the population as a whole) and die younger, reducing their burden on Social Security and Medicare systems in old age? What about the “social costs” to public assistance and insurance payers of much higher rates of pregnancy, birth, and infant health complications generated by parents over age 35 compared to younger parents?

Because social cost analysts pick what costs to include and which to ignore to suit political agendas, the alleged “social costs of teenage childbearing” are a grotesque sham. They represent the same ideology as 19th century eugenicists concerned about excessive breeding by “inferior stock.”

In the end, what is truly troubling is not that politicians and elitists attempt to sell long-discredited racial and class prejudices about who should be allowed to have babies and who should not be, but that America’s progressive lobbies have bought into the “social costs of teenage motherhood” scam so eagerly. Assigning costs to babies has no place in a humane society. The effort to do so is what separates the latter-day eugenicists from those truly concerned about reproductive health and family planning options—just as the latter should vigorously separate themselves from the former.

Mike Males, YouthFacts.org

This squares with a general media bias intended to primarily focus on crime committed by poor minority groups rather than the far more costly white-collar crime committed by wealthy whites because the former increases ratings and the latter does not.

The same is evidently true in the case of academic bias to some extent, as well as Hoffman's clear interest in perpetuating the existence of the organization that he represents.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, I don't get it either. How can this happen unless a guy wills it? Can someone explain the phsyiological phenomenon.

No. Men can have involuntary erections even in such situations. For that matter, some women would experience involuntary sexual gratification while raped, though it is far more rare, and would not change the ethical wrongness of the act.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I always thought fear made their balls shrivel up?

It does. Any distraction would just make the penis flaccid. My husband jokingly said that our theory would have to be put to the test...

 

[Anguille]

No. Men can have involuntary erections even in such situations. For that matter, some women would experience involuntary sexual gratification while raped, though it is far more rare, and would not change the ethical wrongness of the act.

I guess we are animals after all. Animals that can be bred.

 

[Diuretic]

I always thought fear made their balls shrivel up?

More like they hide - really, that's what it feels like to me anyway.

 

[Agnapostate]

This thread has taken quite the constructive turn.

 

[Anguille]

did you say constrictive?

 

[Diuretic]

This thread has taken quite the constructive turn.

Just as long as it doesn't get too cerebral and if it does I'll be blaming you Agna

There I was, having a perfectly useful discussion based purely on my gut feeling and along you come with...........well I can only say, rationality and logic! Cut it out! It makes it too bloody hard to post in the thread

 

[Diuretic]

did you say constrictive?

My eyes are watering.

 

[Agnapostate]

did you say constrictive?

This isn't a gynecological exam!

 

[Anguille]

heh heh!

 

[Agnapostate]

+1?

 

[Shogun]

why dont you test this
ask your man to try to not get stiff while you try to make him
see what happens

I'll admit, it's hard to say no to a blowjob. But I'm not of the mind that a 13 year old boy is capable of making the same kind of responsible decisions as an actual adult.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'll admit, it's hard to say no to a blowjob. But I'm not of the mind that a 13 year old boy is capable of making the same kind of responsible decisions as an actual adult.

On what basis do you make such claims? I have provided evidence for my claims.

Don't make me laugh. You asserted that young adolescents lacked maturity and competence, and I asked you to provide a basis for those beliefs. You were evidently unable to do so, so I will provide a basis for my own beliefs that they do not, as I have before.

My contention is that, contrary to popular belief, the commonly accepted claim that adolescents are incapable of exercising rational judgment abilities is not an indisputably correct one. Supporters of this position frequently cite studies conducted with the use of magnetic resonance imaging or functional magnetic resonance imaging that illustrate that the teenage brain is “underdeveloped,” and that adolescents are thus often incapable of making rational or well informed decisions about significant issues. Yet, as Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, notes in an article published in Scientific American Mind, thought there is some semblance of a correlation between adolescence and brain development illustrated in these scans, there is no evidence of causation by a natural stage of adolescence. His chief counter-argument references the fact that adolescents have been severely infantilized in modern society, in contrast to the important adult role they played in past times, and it may be this factor that has led to the lack of brain development so commonly assumed to be a natural byproduct of adolescence. As such, it would not be intellectually honest to declare the infallibility of these scans just yet.

There are several studies that have been conducted on the basis of measuring the actual competency of adolescents to make informed decisions, as opposed to highly speculative guesswork based on snapshots of the brain.

An important one is that of Lois A. Weithorn and Susan B. Campbell, which tested four groups of people, aged 9, 14, 18, and 21. The study, entitled The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions, came to the conclusion that 14 year olds were capable of making medical decisions with a level of competence equivalent to that of legal adults. As partially summarized by Weithorn and Campbell:

"In general, minors aged 14 were found to demonstrate a level of competency equivalent to that of adults, according to four standards of competency (evidence of choice, reasonable outcome, rational reasons, and understanding), and for four hypothetical dilemmas (diabetes, epilepsy, depression and enuresis.)…The findings of this research do not lend support to policies which deny adolescents the right of self-determination in treatment situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity to provide informed consent. The ages of eighteen or twenty-one as the “cutoffs” below which individuals are presumed to be incompetent to make determinations about their own welfare do not reflect the psychological capacities of most adolescents."

The earlier study of researchers Grisso and Vierling, Minors’ Consent to Treatment: A Developmental Perspective, came to a similar conclusion, the authors stating that “existing evidence provides no legal assumption that minors aged 15 years and above cannot provide competent consent.”

Researchers Bruce Ambuel and Julian Rappaport discovered similar results in a study intended to specifically focus on this topic, entitled Developmental trends in adolescents' psychological and legal competence to consent to abortion. The study confirmed the fact that the rational judgment and decision making capacities of adolescents, (particularly those at or beyond mid-adolescence), were often on par with those of adults.

In a wide-ranging review of the developmental literature on adolescents’ abilities to make rational decisions about medical treatment, researchers Kuther and Posada confirmed that, “the literature in developmental psychology has shown that adolescents are able to make meaningful decisions and advocates for youth have argued that researchers must respect the autonomy rights of children and adolescents,” thus confirming the legitimacy and validity of the previous studies to a great degree.