Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

[JakeStarkey]

Folks, don't dish what you can't take.

 

[koshergrl]

I have posted it several times over the years, but will be glad to post it again:

Child sexual abuse: What parents should know

If you would like more...Google "1 in 4 girls sexually abused before 18" A great deal more links will pop up.

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Translation: "it's girls...who cares?"

Are 13 year old homosexual girls suffering an increase in HIV infection because of their much older homosexual partners?

No?

Are 13 year old girls lobbying to reduce the age of consent?

No?

Then it's not pertinent to THIS thread.

But it is important..which is why I will fully support and participate in a thread about that topic when you start it.

 

[bodecea]

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Translation: "it's girls...who cares?"

Nice putting words in my mouth, but no.

Neg for being a lying ass.

Yes...QUITE TOUCHY. But you are not the first, nor will you be the last to dismiss the very high statistics on girls suffering sexual abuse. It doesn't play like "gays and boys" with the RW crowd.

 

[martybegan]

I have posted it several times over the years, but will be glad to post it again:

Child sexual abuse: What parents should know

If you would like more...Google "1 in 4 girls sexually abused before 18" A great deal more links will pop up.

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Oh, that makes sense. Because I was 11, so my mom said since I was old enough to know better, it was an 'affair.'

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

 

[bodecea]

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Translation: "it's girls...who cares?"

Are 13 year old homosexual girls suffering an increase in HIV infection because of their much older homosexual partners?

No?

Are 13 year old girls lobbying to reduce the age of consent?

No?

Then it's not pertinent to THIS thread.

But it is important..which is why I will fully support and participate in a thread about that topic when you start it.

It is as pertinent to this thread as making this about homosexuals.

But...then again, I will say......girls being sexually abused doesn't sell to the RW crowd like "gays and boys" does.

 

[martybegan]

Translation: "it's girls...who cares?"

Nice putting words in my mouth, but no.

Neg for being a lying ass.

Yes...QUITE TOUCHY. But you are not the first, nor will you be the last to dismiss the very high statistics on girls suffering sexual abuse. It doesn't play like "gays and boys" with the RW crowd.

I am aware it happens, however you are spouting numbers that have a very shaky backing, and that shakyness is implied in the study itself.

I personally know some asshole who went up the river for abusing his own two sons, and I am not shocked to hear of abuse of young girls by men, it happens in public schools all the damn time. My issue is with you spouting off numbers that arent based on hard information.

 

[bodecea]

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Oh, that makes sense. Because I was 11, so my mom said since I was old enough to know better, it was an 'affair.'

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

Then look at any of the several links you will have seen with the google phrase I suggested. I gave you one....you don't want to think about it being that many....so google some more.

Or better yet....google some study that refutes those numbers.

 

[koshergrl]

Translation: "it's girls...who cares?"

Are 13 year old homosexual girls suffering an increase in HIV infection because of their much older homosexual partners?

No?

Are 13 year old girls lobbying to reduce the age of consent?

No?

Then it's not pertinent to THIS thread.

But it is important..which is why I will fully support and participate in a thread about that topic when you start it.

It is as pertinent to this thread as making this about homosexuals.

But...then again, I will say......girls being sexually abused doesn't sell to the RW crowd like "gays and boys" does.

You should make a thread about that.

 

[koshergrl]

"Sixty-eight percent of the present homosexual male participants and 38% of the present homosexual female participants (68 and 36%, respectively, if including just the homosexual fair participants) did not identify as homosexual until after the molestation."

Wow, this is interesting, is it not?

A major study of child abuse and homosexuality revisited

Perhaps I should start another thread on THAT.

I think I will.

 

[BDBoop]

Two issues with the study, in opposite directions: The caveat in there that they probably underreport due to people not coming forward, and overreport due to differences in the definition of what sexual abuse is makes the whole thing pretty much moot.

Oh, that makes sense. Because I was 11, so my mom said since I was old enough to know better, it was an 'affair.'

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

No. The one-in-four figure is about molestation. NOT peers. It's about power, and control, and a child who doesn't even grasp that saying no is an option.

 

[koshergrl]

Exactly!

So who is molesting these 13 year old boys and giving them HIV?

 

[BDBoop]

Child Molestation legal definition of Child Molestation. Child Molestation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[koshergrl]

Hint. They're older and homosexual.

 

[koshergrl]

And why does the CDC refer to 13 year old boys as "MSMs"?

Is a 13 year old child a man?

 

[koshergrl]

I can certainly understand why the homo lobby seeks to lower the age of consent. These questions are terribly problematic. Thank goodness the CDC is busy fingering the dyke.

So to speak. That was a completely unintentional pun.

 

[martybegan]

Folks, don't dish what you can't take.

Show me where I have put words in people's mouths that is obviously a lie.

Until then cut with the white knight crap.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, that makes sense. Because I was 11, so my mom said since I was old enough to know better, it was an 'affair.'

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

No. The one-in-four figure is about molestation. NOT peers. It's about power, and control, and a child who doesn't even grasp that saying no is an option.

No, it was about abuse, which according to the study could also include two underage people canoodling around because neither can give consent.

Read the link.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, that makes sense. Because I was 11, so my mom said since I was old enough to know better, it was an 'affair.'

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

Then look at any of the several links you will have seen with the google phrase I suggested. I gave you one....you don't want to think about it being that many....so google some more.

Or better yet....google some study that refutes those numbers.

a study that refutes said numbers would probably have the same exact base issues with the data due to loose definitions and a high number of unreported events.

 

[koshergrl]

However. That's a different topic.
A really important one...but different.

Perhaps we should just make all sex outside of legal marriage illegal. That should take care of a lot of this confusion.

 

[bodecea]

No, its because if the girl was 13 and the boy was 15, since they both can't consent it would be considered "abuse" under some definitions. My issue is soley of throwing numbers around like "1 in 4" girls are abused and "1 in 6" boys are abused when the study itself says it can be way fucking off. If you are going to use numbers, they have to be solid numbers.

No. The one-in-four figure is about molestation. NOT peers. It's about power, and control, and a child who doesn't even grasp that saying no is an option.

No, it was about abuse, which according to the study could also include two underage people canoodling around because neither can give consent.

Read the link.

So...that would raise that stats for girls AND boys, right?


I wonder how many of those pre-adult sexual encounters you want to use to excuse the high number of girls sexually abused before they turn 18?