The paper is not looking at people in general. It's looking at a subset of teens that are sexually active.
Most 17 year olds are (were) sexually active. The study is not about child marriage, it is about "sexual partners" which is almost the same thing as a "relationship". I know some 20 year old guys that are dating (or dated) a 17 year old woman.
Even if it is as low as 1% it is still common and it is a lot, that is my point. Something that is rare in the US population is well under 1%. I think it is very likely that more than 1% of 17 year old girls are dating 20 year old guys.
[quote]
That was about 90% of 17 year olds 25 years ago according to the statistics.
Are these "statistics" ones being read by you? Because I think we've seen a lot of evidence that you don't know how to read statistics. I did a quick survey of publications, by no means a solid lit review, and found that this number is grossly exaggerated.
The best numbers I can find for the near-present is that about 40% of girls age 15-19 have had sex. That very strongly suggests that the prevalence of sexually active girls aged 15-17 is way the hell below 100%, which is the number you assumed to make your claim.
[b]Even if it is as low as 1% it is still common and it is a lot, that is my point. [/b]
[/quote]
Yeah, that was one of your hilarious arguments I saw. Because 1% of the public dying is a big deal, that means 1% prevalence of anything constitutes "common." Back in the real world, that's just not how language works. I'd love to see you try this argument out on other subjects.
DT, you appear way behind on your work. You said you did most of it.
I did 1% of it. That's a lot! Oh, you don't think so? So, 1% of the public dying in a pandemic is no big deal to you? Pfft.
[quote]For 17 year olds? 17 year olds are way more active than 15 year olds[b]. Please stop making me talk about 15 year olds. [/b][/quote]
The paper you are citing, the specific statistic you mangled, is talking about the 15-17 year old age range. You can't draw conclusions about 17 year olds simply by cutting off 15-16 year olds and assuming the numbers are even higher for 17 year olds. That's a basic mistaken inference. It might be the case that while 15 year olds are much less likely to be sexually active, among those that are, which is who this statistic is looking at, their sexual behavior is pulling the average up. That's entirely plausible. Sexually active 17 year olds might be having sex with 20 somethings at lower rates than sexually active high school sophomores are having sex with high school seniors in a way that weights the data. You don't know. You can't just assume that a number that describes the behavior of 15-17 year olds applies exclusively to 17 year olds.
Yeah, that was one of your hilarious arguments I saw. Because 1% of the public dying is a big deal, that means 1% prevalence of anything constitutes "common."
"Common" is not "the majority" or "most". "Child marriage is common in many areas of Mexico. Nearly 1 in 4 girls (or 23%) are married" Is the author wrong for using the word "common"?
Okay, let change it to 10%. Would you agree that 10% is common?
[Of course it is (or was) higher for 17 year olds. It is illegal for an adult to be in a relationship with a 15 year old, and 16 is illegal in most US states. But it is okay for a 17 year old to date an older guy in many areas. The average age for sexual activity is 17, not 16 or 15. Please stop making me talk about 15 year olds.
Okay so what has the above got to do with the study?