The DoubtingThomas dating / relationships MEGATHREAD

[Guest]

I cannot find support within those studies for your claim that it is especially prevalent within minorities and Mexicans.
Please quote the parts that support your assertion.

You have to read the study (not the abstract) and look for the word "Hispanic". The Ryan study isn't about 17 year olds, but it makes me assume that a lot of Hispanic 17 year old girls are dating older guys. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18318868

It also concludes “ CONCLUSION:
Although the proportion of 15-17-year-old women who have a much older partner is small” (“small” isn’t a synonym of “many” or “common”).

Much older means "six or more years older" and 18% is small compared to the other percentages, but in a population or an age group 18% is a lot. So yes, a lot of 17 year olds are dating 20 year old guys.

According to the numbers at least 36% of 17 year olds have a relationship with older guys (3 years or older). 36% is a lot! Some states do allow 20 year old guys to date 17 year old women. 17 year olds are not juveniles in my state.'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10435214

If DT were Mexican-American himself, you might instead interpret his claim as attempting to argue that it is a more culturally normal thing for people like himself.

I am not, but it is in the literature. There are many other sources.

This would be weird if he wasn't attempting to defend a personal desire to have sexual relationships with teenagers.

18 or older are not teenagers. How many times do I have to state that I would never be in a relationship with someone under 18, even if the legal age is 16 or 17? Tell me how many? The thing is you accused me of borderline desire because I said I was willing to date an 18 year old woman .

[_DoubtingThomas]

Regarding ehebephilia, I agree that American society punishes relationships between late teens and somewhat older people too harshly

You are the one that started talking about ehebephilia on this thread and I am starting to suspect that you are the one with borderline desires. Be careful with your state laws.

[_EAllusion]

I said your posts when taken with your posting history have strong overtones of ehebephilia DT. I said that because they do. Turning that around into "I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't change that. It's not that you've voiced an opinion on statutory rape laws once. It's that you obessively bounced between narrow range of topics with a great deal of them just relentlessly focusing on either how sex with teens is not as bad as people think or how you feel unfulfilled unless you get to have a sexual relationship with a teen or the closest thing to that ideal you can manage. Again, strong overtones.

[_EAllusion]

[quote]

According to the numbers at least [b]36%[/b] of 17 year olds have a relationship with older guys (3 years or older). [b]36% is a lot![/b] Some states do allow 20 year old guys to date 17 year old women. [b]17 year olds are not juveniles in my state.[/b]'
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10435214[/quote]

First, this paper concerns data from 25 years ago. Sexual behavior has changed considerably in that timeframe. Second, you continue to use the questionable word "relationship" when you cite papers that refer to having had a sexual partner. Third, this paper does not claim what you state in a number of ways. The most important one - one that shows me quite clearly you are trolling for information to support what you are saying rather than trying to learn from these papers you are hunting down - is that the numbers concern [i]sexually active[/i] 15-17 year olds. That's a quite different cohort than all 17 year olds as you claim. You also can't add the 3-5 years and 6+ years groups together because they may contain overlap. You also can't take the top-end number of an age range to exaggerate the partner age range.

Each one of this errors makes relationships between late teens and mid-20 somethings more common than it is. Why is that?

[_DoubtingThomas]

how sex with teens is not as bad as people think

Oh that is not true! I am always careful with my wording. Maybe it is the case with 17 year olds (something that should still be discourage anyway), but I never said such an abomination. There is no question that people should go to prison for having sex with teenagers under 16.

It's not that you've voiced an opinion on statutory rape laws once.

The last time was about 2 years ago. Give me a break! And I never said it is okay! Sure perhaps 20 years of prison is too harsh if the sex was consensual, but I did say there has to be some punishment.

how you feel unfulfilled unless you get to have a sexual relationship with a teen or the closest thing to that ideal you can manage. Again, strong overtones.

An 18 year old is not a teenager, and I said I would prefer to date a 25 year old with no history.

Thank you for calling out this racist BS, IHAQ.

I did some research on child marriage in Mexico and it is really really bad! Jesus Christ! "26% of girls in Mexico are married before the age of 18" https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/mexico/

[Guest]

First, this paper concerns data from 25 years ago. Sexual behavior has changed considerably in that timeframe.

That is a good point! However, anything more than 1% is still a lot. Wouldn't you agree? It is doubtful the rate dropped a lot in the hispanic culture or states with the age of consent of 16.

Second, you continue to use the questionable word "relationship" when you cite papers that refer to having had a sexual partner.

So would a relationship rate be higher?

. is that the numbers concern sexually active 15-17 year olds. That's a quite different cohort than all 17 year olds as you claim.

That is because I don't want to talk about 15 year olds. It is for 15-17, but the percentage 17 year olds only is (or was) probably much higher. There is no trolling here! .

[_EAllusion]

An 18 year old is literally a teenager. There's a giant hint in the word. And you've opened yourself up to dating mid-20 year olds, so long as they're virginal or near that, after backing off a more strident focus on teens you got a ton of flack for. That's progress, but it doesn't erase the overtones in your posting that are clearly there. Even in this thread you've pointed to 18-22 and virginal as ideal. Pointing out you got a backup plan that stretches the boundaries a bit if you cannot bed an 18 year old virgin doesn't make you look as not interested in screwing teens as you might think it does.

[_DoubtingThomas]

First, this paper concerns data from 25 years ago. Sexual behavior has changed considerably in that timeframe.

That is a good point! However, anything more than 1% is still a lot. Wouldn't you agree? It is doubtful the rate dropped a lot in the hispanic culture or states with the age of consent of 16.

Second, you continue to use the questionable word "relationship" when you cite papers that refer to having had a sexual partner.

So would a relationship rate be higher?

. is that the numbers concern sexually active 15-17 year olds. That's a quite different cohort than all 17 year olds as you claim.

That is because I don't want to talk about 15 year olds. It is for 15-17, but the percentage 17 year olds only is (or was) probably much higher. There is no trolling here! .

[_EAllusion]

[quote]

That is because I don't want to talk about 15 year olds, I mean come on! And yes because the percentage is 15-17 that means the percentage is (or was) much higher for 17 year olds.[/quote]

The paper is not looking at people in general. It's looking at a subset of teens that are [i]sexually active[/i]. In 1995, using a particular data pool, it found that 29% of sexually active girls between the ages of 15-17 said they had a sexual partner 3-5 years older than them and 7% said they had a sexual partner 6+ years older than them. You added those two numbers up, then claimed that 36% of 17 year olds as a whole have had a relationship with a man at least 20 years old. This is all kinds of wrong. 1) Not every 15-17 year old is sexually active. A lot of them, in fact, are not. In the present, that number is well under 50%. 2) You can't just add the two groups together because it is possible that some girls who have had sex with someone 3-5 years older than them have had sex with someone 6+ years older than them. 3) Because the age range in question is 15-17, you can't just add 3 years to 17 and claim that's what % of 17 year olds have had sex with a 20+ year old. If you're feeling math challenged today, 15+3=18. 4) Not all female sexual partners are men and you can't just assume the numbers on sexual partners reflect sex with men. There's probably some nuance in how careful we need to be with the actual numbers (quality of data pool, self-reporting biases, definition of sexual partner, etc.), but your errors are so glaring, it's not even possible to get to that point. All of your errors, all of them, exaggerate the prevalence of sex between underage teens and 20-something men.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Even in this thread you've pointed to 18-22 and virginal as ideal. Pointing out you got a backup plan that stretches the boundaries a bit if you cannot bed an 18 year old virgin doesn't make you look as not interested in screwing teens as you might think it does.

I never said I only want virgin. If you read the first page "I really don't want to be the 4th, 5th, or 6th guy. It is okay if I am the 2nd guy, but more than that is just scary." and " I wouldn't have a problem dating a woman that was divorced."

after backing off a more strident focus on teens you got a ton of flack for.

Please stop lying. You need to say "18 years or older",or simply say "women". If I want to I could say "I am open on dating a 17 year old", but I will never date a 17 year old woman because I don't feel it is appropriate, even if it is okay in some US states or the Hispanic culture.