s

Double standard: men punished more harshly then women

If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.

Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.

In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?

Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!

In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)

adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.

pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.

Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.

In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.

Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.

Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of decades of enforced ruinous child support and alimony duty with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent. No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.



Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.

Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.

Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?

Human-Stupidity.com is getting ostracized for daring to question conventional dogma :

Anything remotely sexual, indecent touch of adolescents is a heinous crime and deserve decades in jail, vigilante beatings, death penalty?

Anyone who just merely questions the laws and punishments, like we so here, risks to incur the same punishments. We have been warned of the possibility of vigilante action and legal persecution, in spite of the fact that nobody here engages in sex with teenagers much less in sex with children, or peruses child pornography, But, like in the middle ages where the mere thought of contradicting the bible was a dangerous sacrilege, our new witch hunts have new thought crimes.

Furnishing alcohol to minors is a crime. But it does not carry decade-long jail sentences, nor does it occupy large parts of Interpol, even though it can lead to accidental death, deadly fights, miscarriages and fetuses deformed for life. We also don’t penalize Hollywood movies of adolescents smoking or drinking. Maybe punishments for sexual offenses should be comparable to these.

What damage would be done if government did not meddle in consensual decisions of adolescent teenagers.?

Do adolescents need to be protected by draconian punishments from their own decisions?

Probably the very last free study, the Rind Study answered that no major damage is expected.

Scientific answers and scientific inquiry on adolescent sexuality is totally impossible

Once the US Senate condemns scientific research by a 99:0 vote, the congress by a similarly unanimous vote, not on its merit, but on pure demagogic knee jerk reactions, science is finished. It is impossible to conduct unbiased research about adolescent and child sexuality and its potential damages, or lack thereof.

Totally independent of policy and legal implications, we totally condemn political repression of scientific research as contrary to everything modern US and Western constitutions and research traditions stand for.

On July 12th, this year, the United States House of Representatives voted 355-0 (with 13 members voting "present") to condemn our study entitled "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," published in Psychological Bulletin. The Senate quickly followed suit. To our knowledge, never before in the history of this country has a scientific publication been so treated. Rind Study controversy

Research about adolescent and childhood sexuality in the 21st Century is s impossible. Equally impossible unbiased research about planetary movements In the 17th Century during the medieval reign of the catholic church that the burned astronomer Giordano Bruno and and nearly burned Galileo Galilei. Galileo escaped death only because he backpedalled and denied the truth his research had found.

No scientific research is possible when the results are determined beforehand and it is known that certain findings will lead to serious consequences.

While it would be interesting to discuss the Rind Study on its scientific merits, this can not be done with seriousness as long as one side can not get grants, will be fired if possible, and risks vigilante vendetta.

Of course, the same is true about research into race and iq: unbiased research is impossible when Jensen gets pelted with tomatoes, Rushton almost got dismissed in spite of having tenure and being the most prolific and most cited scientist of the psychology department of his University, and Nobel Prize winner James Watson gets fired from his own institute and his solt-out lecture cancelled for suggesting that Africa’s problems might be caused by lower intelligence of the black race

similar issues apply to illicit drugs like marijuana

Adults seriously endangering and damaging children suffer little or no legal consequences

If someone gives alcohol, cigarettes to children, they don’t get 20 years in jail.

Even consistently overfeeding children and toddlers on junk foods that cause severe health damage and early death remains totally unpunished.

Pregnant women drinking alcohol crippling their fetus for life with fetal alcohol syndrome go unpunished.

Bullying in school is also not seriously

Ancient reasons for double standard in adolescent sexuality are no more valid

Our religious traditions, and our "gut feelings" were made in the EEA, 100 000 years ago.

Historically, there is a reason for the double standard. Girls can get pregnant, have to support the child, become un-marriageable. This has changed

Historical situation Modern Situation Girl could get pregnant We have birth control.

Even in case of pregnancy, girl has full capacity to decide for (early) abortion Girl could not afford to support the baby Women are supposed to be empowered and able to earn money

children get day care

single mothers get welfare

Men get forced to pay child support with all the power of the law Girls who lost virginity, or worse, got pregnant were unmarriageable Society has changed. Single mothers are not heavily ostracized any more. Boys who impregnated girls could shirk financial responsibility Everywhere in the world, men are totally responsible for their offspring. Sometimes even if it is not their offspring. Medieval debtor’s prison has been re-instituted: many men are in jail for refusal or incapacity to pay child support.

Boys have absolutely no reproductive rights, absolutely no control if a pregnancy will et carried to term or not. They are obliged to pay, totally dependent on the woman’s decision.

We have birth control and abortion. So the girl has full control if she wants to have the baby or not. Men have no control. That is already a serious power imbalance among adults. Minors are legally are not able to enter into legal contracts. It seems very strange that young boys can get ordered to pay child support for decades. There would be very strong legal and psychological argument that the minor has not the capacity to enter into 20 year contracts (especially with an adult!) Maybe impregnating a minor should be the crime, not the sexual act.



If the woman got pregnant, the boy would have to have to pay child support for 20 years, maybe even without being able to see his children. Human-Stupidity thinks that

being obliged, under serious threats of legal consequences, to pay child support for decades, is traumatic for an adolescent

while we have strong doubts about prevailing wisdom that an adolescent can not consent to sex, we feel much stronger that an adolescent can not consent to a 20 year obligation to pay a large portion of his income. Or worse, to be obliged to generate income instead of studying.

an adolescent girl who had unprotected sex with a man always has the option to get an abortion. They boy only has the option to pay.

Related articles

Related articles 6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play (human-stupidity.com)

Related