Here's some for you.
I bet there's nobody surprised by this finding. :icon_chee
https://www.yahoo.com/health/who-has-the-more-fluid-sexuality-men-or-women-127560881542.html
That said it has no relevance to the conversation we were having about whether or not gender has an influence on the harmful effects of nonviolent sex between adults and adolescents. Maybe I'm missing something here but it really has next to nothing to do with this thread. It'd make a great thread for the Mayberry though :icon_chee
No it doesn't because the evidence based approach is always the best one especially when we're talking about something as important as sentencing disparities. We're not talking about girl scouts vs boy scouts here, we're talking about taking people's freedoms away and I'm not not comfortable leaving that up to broscience.It relates to the silliness of asking for some sort of study as "proof" when pretty much everyone's experience is in agreement.
I never said it wasn't possible, I just said it should be based on evidence before we allow it to influence our legal systemIt relates to me saying that men and women have different psychologies when it comes to sex. I think you disputed both those points because you didn't seem to want to agree that just because we take protecting underage girls so seriously that we don't need to go to the same extent with boys.
Common agreement about gender interactions is pretty insufficient IMO since common ideas have been wrong about plenty of other things and with people's freedom on the line I don't quite think that's nearly enough. I see where you're coming from but here I think people are taking the difference for granted. Sure men and women are different in ways that are relevant to sex but are they really so different here? Is it crazy to think some girls out there actually want to fuck their teachers like their male counterparts? I certainly knew many in high school that did and in fact one ended up blowing a teacher, Like I mentioned earlier its in fact women who tend to find older partners more attractive rather than men, though admittedly these cases are an exception for men, so I find it silly to throw the book at men and not women.
.
I'm saying that should be the default assumption in the absence of evidence. I happen to think research in this area very well might end up justifying the double standard, I'd just rather wait for the evidence before perpetuating the double standard.
I think I've been very clear here, I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself.First off, I never said men and women view sex the same way. In fact I mentioned earlier than men and women do have different reasons for having sex despite pleasure being the number one reason for both.
The evidence I'm asking for is evidence that would justify a double standard in the treatment of male and female sex offenders. If there is no evidence that female adolescents react more negatively to nonviolent sex with an adult of the opposite gender than a male adolescent I don't think there should be a double standard. I don't think calling for an evidence based approach is too controversial.
I just can't see my 15-year-old self saying to my parents, "Mother, Father - I've had my innocence stolen by a former NFL cheerleader."
I think I've been very clear here,
I'm calling it broscience because of the methodology used. Or rather, lack thereof.Maybe I'm confused because you talk about "bro-science" being invalid on one hand while supporting its conclusion (i.e. it's inappropriate to give lengthy prison sentences to seductive women under the guise that teenage boys need protected from their sexual advances).
I don't see why this is so hard to understand. When something as important as people's freedom is on the line, we need to employ the best methodology available(i.e. the scientific method) to justify a double standard. Plenty of things that seem to be true aren't. Since we're talking about sex differences I can use the example of domestic violence; its overwhelmingly seen as exclusively a male on female issue despite plenty of evidence that there is gender symmetry in DV. Here, the common knowledge couldn't be more wrong and unfortunately it continues to influence the national debate and the way we handle the situation. Given that men commit most other violent crimes at higher rates one could fairly assume it would be the case for DV but the evidence points in the other direction.You really can't understand why I posted that study in this thread? Here's my impression of your position on (what should be) an obviously agreeable premise.
Person A: We all know X is true.
Person B: We can't say that because there's no scientific study to proclaim it truth.
Person A: Sometimes things are obvious and we don't need a study to make a decision. For perspective here's an example of a study showing how something else that's obviously true to everyone is confirmed.
Person B: I have no idea why there's any discussion of the validity of proceeding on a (near) unanimously held belief in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Its not willful ignorance, its using an evidence based approach over a broscience one. Women may be more valued by society for their chastity and they may approach sex differently in some ways but in the most important ways they're not so differentSo to bring that back around for you, my position is that boys don't see sex the same as girls so using a standard for boys because it's applied to girls ignores reality. The reality being that men are viewed more highly for conquests and women more highly for virtue. That you would bring up the need for proof of a difference in mentality seemed like willful ignorance.
Given this is it so hard to believe some of these young girls who have sex with their teachers are enjoying it, not unlike their male peers? And given that girls tend to be more attracted to older men than the reverse isn't it then more likely that these young girls are attracted to these older male teachers?Top 50 reasons WOMEN have sex:
1. I was attracted to the person.
2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
3. It feels good.
Top 50 reasons MEN have sex:
1. I was attracted to the person.
2. It feels good.
3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
Assuming that then I guess these poor women should have the book thrown at them like the men but ideally the legal system should not be based on societal views with no basis in evidence so I would say that offenders who engaged in nonviolent, quasi-consensual(i.e. the minor consented despite that consent not being recognized) should not be sent to 20 years though they should also not be allowed to have jobs that put them near children/adolescents.You talk about strict scrutiny when it comes to taking someone's freedom, which I agree with. So that leaves you with a choice. Either punish both genders the same out of principle (by either increasing sentencing for females / lowering sentencing for males) or have sentencing reflect societal views when it comes to biology. Roughly put, I'm not going to take up the fight that girls don't need protection in order to make that case that boys banging older women makes them closer to heroes than victims. Assuming people won't budge on heavy protections for underage girls, then what?
A large reason for this hypocrisy is other men. Men who are upset they didn't get laid when young or something or secretly crave young vagina but deny it.
Look no further than this own forum to find posters who have daughters who would cheer with sadist joy at the thought of sending a way some 20 year old let alone a 48 year old to prison for decades all for consensual sex with his sexual daughter. These walking hypocrites like to PRETEND that their daughters aren't sexual or that certain sexual acts with men or multiple men are 'above' their precious little daughter.
Oh how false they are. It is patriarchal society which creates a lot of this.
Oh and btw I am not a social justice warrior I am just speaking the truth. Men do NOT like a loss of power but it is this very same constant crave for power and cyclical cycle of needing to feel 'masculine' which encourages the phenomenon of empty 'religious' men and or walking hypocrites. Look no further than your own churches to see truly broken men masquerading with masks trying to deny the inner warrior/beast which craves to be let out!
Sex for women, particular younger girls, is as much about an emotional connection as it is physical. Sex for boys is primarily satisfying horny cravings and going through a rite of passage. This is not a double standard but a different standard. How many 15 year old guys are going to be all fucked up later in life because they banged their hot 30 year old math teacher? But I bet you almost all 15 year old girls will have self-esteem and trust issues.
Most of it is how we are socialized but a decent portion of it also is that sex to women and men is not the same. Yes women love sex too but there is often much deeper things going on with them at the same time when it involves sex. Particularly at younger ages. These boys are not victims for the most part. And some of the girls probably aren't either. The sentencing should be based primarily on the amount of coercion and psychological damage after as assessed by a shrink. Don't think for a second the younger person can't be the predator either.
Most of this is fucking stupid. A 15 year old can't consent and someone can get 20 years but 2 weeks later when they turn 16 its legal?? Yes there has to be a line somewhere but the punishments should be proportionate to how close to the line someone is and what kind of relationship it is. Hell there have been stories of these kind of cases where both ran away to avoid the one being sentences and they got married and had kids and were still married 15 years later. Not quite the same as some 15 year girl crying in the shower trying to get the stink of some 48 year old chemlab teacher who coerced into sex. These situations are not black and white.
I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
Women may be more valued by society for their chastity and they may approach sex differently in some ways but in the most important ways they're not so different
Assuming that then I guess these poor women should have the book thrown at them like the men but ideally the legal system should not be based on societal views with no basis in evidence so I would say that offenders who engaged in nonviolent, quasi-consensual(i.e. the minor consented despite that consent not being recognized) should not be sent to 20 years though they should also not be allowed to have jobs that put them near children/adolescents.
If you think men and women are in fact equal then I don't know what to say. If you want to argue for equal treatment under the law on principle that's cool, and as it should be for the most part. Only a moron doesn't see differences between genders (both physically and psychologically). Only a liar would try to argue that gender plays no role in the impact upon the minor in a matter like this. Your position seems to be that we need to stick it to the woman so we can make a point of some sort, regardless of actual harm done.
But do you have any evidence that this is the case? I haven't looked into the subject so perhaps the evidence is out there but if you're going to assert it so strongly you might as well back up your claim. If not, calling for equality in the absence of such evidence seems like the logical and fair thing to do.
Teens that drink heavily or use hard drugs think they're having the time of their lives, without realizing the damage they are doing to themselves mentally and physically.
You don't think a 14 year old being exposed to sex by a much older woman can have negative consequences?
Well if they think that then aren't they (having the time of their lives), by definition?
Yes, because exposure to sex at any age can be unpleasant. I'd say the solution to that then would be to have more, because it's usually pretty damn enjoyable compared to other leisure activities. Most dads would tell their son to get back on the whorse. I'd hate to have one that said "Boy, just stick to masturbating. It'll save you most of your earnings." What fun would that be?
What a 14 year old boy thinks about sex doesn't matter as he is unable to legally consent. If you disagree with this, then say hello to pedophilia
I think your definition is incorrect.
Beyond that, based on this post, your logic allows for not letting women vote and that 3/5th's (or whatever it was) bullshit. Because, you know, the law is the law there isn't it chief?
I'm not sure what people that target young teens for sexual contact would be called.
How does my logic go towards those at all?
What a 14 year old boy thinks about sex doesn't matter as he is unable to legally consent.
Kids this young are not able to consent to sex. Do you disagree?
"Target"?
Sorry, I took the following as an argument.
Which you've doubled down upon.
Legally? Depends. Here's some facts you should consider prior to further argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
Let me know if you decide that "legally" and "reality" might not totally coincide.