Child sexual abuse

[nellikin]

Correction:

Okay - so the official stats say that around at 1/4 (probably more like 1/3 buts it's difficult to accurately assess due to the lack of reporting) girls and at least 1/6 (probably more like 1/4) boys in Australia will be sexually abused before the age of 18. This includes being touched, being forced to touch someone, attempted sexual intercourse and completed sexual intercourse. Together these crimes are widely categorised as "child molestation", which includes rape. If rape merely means penetration, then the stats are a lot lower, with around 6% of girls being "penetrated". To adults, penetration may have more significance, but what difference does it make to a 6-year-old if a man forces her to jack him off, or puts his fingers in her vagina, or puts his dick in her mouth? The abuse is the misuse of trust, not the physical violation...

I guess what it comes down to is our definition of rape. If rape means forcing a sexual act upon someone against their will, then melstation is equal to rape. If rape means solely forcing sexual intercourse upon someone against their will, then you could tie a person up, whip them and come on their stomach without committing rape...

[floppit]

but what difference does it make to a 6-year-old if a man forces her to jack him off, or puts his fingers in her vagina, or puts his dick in her mouth?

I've got to say with a child that small there's a physical damage factor in penetrative sex and it can be children even younger. I don't think that anyone is denying the abuse of trust is equal in all deliberate abuse, just that the consequences for the person can be different. That doesn't do anything to remove any validation of what one individual feels, it merely lets another say what they feel too.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I've often voiced my scepticism about the number of sexual abuse of women. Not particularly when it comes to South Africa, but mainly when it comes to the 'Western world', by which I include what I would generally call modern nations - the US, Canady, Western Europe, Australia, &c. In many cases, sexual abuse is seen as a euphemism for rape. This is most importantly not the case. Sexual abuse, in many studies, can include 'unwanted sexual attention' which can range to include "You looking mighty fine, shake that ass, bitch!" -- although obviously unpleasant, it's a far stretch away from being physically raped.
Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.
Next to this, there is the vast underestimated number of male rape, where men are raped in prisons, or even by women.

I think that statistical information has been hugely and detrimentally reported in relation to 'sexual abuse' to such an extent as it is now difficult to get factual information; almost everything is suspect since it has become a political issue. To admit that only one in five women are raped rather than one in four seems (to some) a capitulation, when far more important issues should be discussed. Per example, prevention, but also therapy.

I think, to put it as lightly as I can, the time may soon arrive for the question to be asked, is the high valence with which we now perceive rape aggravating the suffering of victims? -not to imply that we should go to a more realistic appraisal of the gravity of such incidents, in those terms, it's hardly ignoble to overestimate, but only to consider the trauma and how it might be reduced.

A separate though related question. I remember a young, underage, woman who was found out to have relationship with a young though of age male, who saw this young man going to prison for it. There was no question of abuse of power or rape, and what was this woman (or the man, for that matter) to conclude from this situation? That she WAS raped even though she in her mind consented? Or that the justice system was perverted? In both cases, we have lost track of the victim in order to pursue what I would call perverted justice.

I should finally stress that I have tried to be subtle and nuanced in this post, and with good reason - these are sensitive issues. It's not my intent to offend anyone, since people are generally offended by these sorts of critical notes for good reason. There are also those who have not had relevant experiences who are offended for the sake of those who have. I will be paying such voices no mind, of course, although I am certainly sympathetic to people who did have such experiences. I encourage moderators to remove this post should it become the subject of such a controversy.

[Beatsong]

Correction:

Okay - so the official stats say that around at 1/4 (probably more like 1/3 buts it's difficult to accurately assess due to the lack of reporting) girls and at least 1/6 (probably more like 1/4) boys in Australia will be sexually abused before the age of 18. This includes being touched, being forced to touch someone, attempted sexual intercourse and completed sexual intercourse. Together these crimes are widely categorised as "child molestation", which includes rape. If rape merely means penetration, then the stats are a lot lower, with around 6% of girls being "penetrated".

Wow, I have to admit I'm surprised it's as high as that. I'm not arguing or doubting you, just geneuinely surprised.

That's really very bad.

penetration may have more significance, but what difference does it make to a 6-year-old if a man forces her to jack him off, or puts his fingers in her vagina, or puts his dick in her mouth?

Possibly not much, but I take "sexual molestation" as also including brief inappropriate touching, which I presume would less traumatic for most people than the kinds of acts you list.

Actual sexual (ie genital) intercourse between adults and young children presumeably also has the added capacity to be traumatising, due to the fact that it can be very painful. To have someone who's supposed to love and care for you do something inappropriate is one thing. To have them happily visit excruciating physical pain upon you in doing so would take it to a whole other level, I reckon.

But I don't know. There must be studies about the comparative effect upon victims of such things, somewhere?

The abuse is the misuse of trust, not the physical violation...

But you're still leaping from there to the idea that all abuse is equally bad. This is a common mistake when people feel very outraged about a subject, and particularly when it's very close to their personal experience. It's almost like they think that recognising different severities or types of the thing they're outraged about takes away from the absoluteness with which it should all be condemned.

I guess what it comes down to is our definition of rape. If rape means forcing a sexual act upon someone against their will, then melstation is equal to rape. If rape means solely forcing sexual intercourse upon someone against their will, then you could tie a person up, whip them and come on their stomach without committing rape...

Not sure what's to debate there. Rape is pretty universally defined in English as the second of your alternatives, and no - doing that would not qualify as rape.

Murdering them doesn't count as rape either. That doesn't mean it's OK.

[Beatsong]

I've often voiced my scepticism about the number of sexual abuse of women. Not particularly when it comes to South Africa, but mainly when it comes to the 'Western world', by which I include what I would generally call modern nations - the US, Canady, Western Europe, Australia, &c. In many cases, sexual abuse is seen as a euphemism for rape. This is most importantly not the case. Sexual abuse, in many studies, can include 'unwanted sexual attention' which can range to include "You looking mighty fine, shake that ass, bitch!" -- although obviously unpleasant, it's a far stretch away from being physically raped.

really? I don't think that falls into most peoples' definition of "sexual abuse", and I would be surprised if any significant studies included it without making the distinction clear. Particularly studies of the abuse of children, which is the issue here.

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

Next to this, there is the vast underestimated number of male rape, where men are raped in prisons, or even by women.

How do you know, or what makes you think, that it is vastly underestimated? (I don't even know what the estimates are). And how is it relevant?

A separate though related question. I remember a young, underage, woman who was found out to have relationship with a young though of age male, who saw this young man going to prison for it. There was no question of abuse of power or rape, and what was this woman (or the man, for that matter) to conclude from this situation? That she WAS raped even though she in her mind consented?

I suppose that would depend what he went to prison for. Presumeably it was for having sex with a minor, not for rape. In which case I can't see why she would conclude that. If she's reasonably intelligent, she would conclude that society says it's wrong to have sex with people under a certain age, even when they do consent.

[nellikin]

Sexual abuse, in many studies, can include 'unwanted sexual attention' which can range to include "You looking mighty fine, shake that ass, bitch!" -- although obviously unpleasant, it's a far stretch away from being physically raped.

Not so with CHILD sexual abuse - the stats on which cover touching to penetration. What you're describing is termed sexual harassment here, not sexual abuse. I am unaware of any children who have ever claimed to be sexually harassed!

But you're still leaping from there to the idea that all abuse is equally bad. This is a common mistake when people feel very outraged about a subject, and particularly when it's very close to their personal experience. It's almost like they think that recognising different severities or types of the thing they're outraged about takes away from the absoluteness with which it should all be condemned.

I actually do believe that to an immature child's mind, the difference is not that great between touching and penetration. As adults, we have strong perceptions about our bodies and rights, but children don't distinguish nearly as clearly as adults what the rights of their bodies are, and they are often blissfully ignorant of sexuality, making the distinction between touching and penetration very small indeed. What it comes down to is the abuse of trust... (but I'm repeating myself). I think that when people consider the impacts of child sexual abuse, they often look at it from an adult perspective, an not through the eyes of a child...

Not sure what's to debate there. Rape is pretty universally defined in English as the second of your alternatives, and no - doing that would not qualify as rape.

Not true - although rape is typically limited to intercourse, it can legally encompass more and in some places is defined as unwanted sexual intrusion or criminal sexual conduct. In recent decades rape has been redefined, as (typically) women have fought for more rights. Traditionally rape was limited to unwanted sexual intercourse inflicted upon a woman by a man, though this was limited (e.g. men had the right to sexual intercourse with their wives) The shifting definition of rape is a concession to the recognition that both women and men have more rights than are derived from the (in the western world) absolute morals as written in the Bible, and is linked to the women's lib movement.

[Beatsong]

But it is still confined to penetrative intercourse, though not necessarily by a man upon a woman.

Legally, I mean. That's the legal distinction between rape and and sexual abuse. And the linguistic distinction, in most peoples' understanding.

[roter-kaiser]

Let me have a crack at clarifying the terminology of rape since there seems to be some confusion here. I looked the terms up on the most reliable source on the internet - Wikipedia - and here is my summary:

Under the law (in most countries) rape is commonly defined as sexual intercourse with a person against their will with sexual intercourse being penetration. Before the law, intercourse with a minor (usually under 16 or 18) is often considered (statutory) rape even if the minor consents, because a minor is not considered able to give consent to sexual matters. And lastly, child sexual abuse is considered a type of rape. Child sexual abuse is everything from displaying pornography to a child to asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities (regardless of the outcome). It also includes indecent exposure of the genitals to a child, actual sexual contact against a child, physical contact with the child's genitals, viewing of the child's genitalia without physical contact, or using a child to produce child pornography.

As we can see, nellikin is right in talking about rape when it comes to sexual harrassment of any kind against children. For further reading, please follow these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_int ... l_capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I've often voiced my scepticism about the number of sexual abuse of women. Not particularly when it comes to South Africa, but mainly when it comes to the 'Western world', by which I include what I would generally call modern nations - the US, Canady, Western Europe, Australia, &c. In many cases, sexual abuse is seen as a euphemism for rape. This is most importantly not the case. Sexual abuse, in many studies, can include 'unwanted sexual attention' which can range to include "You looking mighty fine, shake that ass, bitch!" -- although obviously unpleasant, it's a far stretch away from being physically raped.

really? I don't think that falls into most peoples' definition of "sexual abuse", and I would be surprised if any significant studies included it without making the distinction clear. Particularly studies of the abuse of children, which is the issue here.

Why would you be surprised? Have you read many of these studies?

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

Err.. No. But thanks for 'correcting' someone whose been studying cognitive psychology for the last five years on what can and can't be done with statistics.

Next to this, there is the vast underestimated number of male rape, where men are raped in prisons, or even by women.

How do you know, or what makes you think, that it is vastly underestimated? (I don't even know what the estimates are). And how is it relevant?

Because it is vastly underestimated, and slowly research is being done into this phenomenon that shows it was underestimated. Jesus.. How do I know this? Because I actually read stuff rather than make shit up about what statistics can do. It's relevant because these are relevant to the interpretation of rape statistics.

A separate though related question. I remember a young, underage, woman who was found out to have relationship with a young though of age male, who saw this young man going to prison for it. There was no question of abuse of power or rape, and what was this woman (or the man, for that matter) to conclude from this situation? That she WAS raped even though she in her mind consented?

I suppose that would depend what he went to prison for. Presumeably it was for having sex with a minor, not for rape. In which case I can't see why she would conclude that. If she's reasonably intelligent, she would conclude that society says it's wrong to have sex with people under a certain age, even when they do consent.

Is there anything you are knowledgeable on? It's statutory rape, because the law says people underage can't give consent.

[DRSB]

The awful part is that even the most distinguished persons can be perpetrators. There is right now this scandal with the prodigy pianist Pletnev being accused in Thailand of raping a 14 year old boy. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/arti ... 09979.html

[Beatsong]

I've often voiced my scepticism about the number of sexual abuse of women. Not particularly when it comes to South Africa, but mainly when it comes to the 'Western world', by which I include what I would generally call modern nations - the US, Canady, Western Europe, Australia, &c. In many cases, sexual abuse is seen as a euphemism for rape. This is most importantly not the case. Sexual abuse, in many studies, can include 'unwanted sexual attention' which can range to include "You looking mighty fine, shake that ass, bitch!" -- although obviously unpleasant, it's a far stretch away from being physically raped.

really? I don't think that falls into most peoples' definition of "sexual abuse", and I would be surprised if any significant studies included it without making the distinction clear. Particularly studies of the abuse of children, which is the issue here.

Why would you be surprised? Have you read many of these studies?

Obviously not, no. If I'd read them, I'd already know what was in them so I'd have nothing to be surprised about, would I?

I'm surprised simply because the difference between "sexual assault" (physical) and "sexual harrassment" (verbal) is extremely clear in most peoples' understanding of English, and - as far as I know as a non-specialist - also pretty clear in law. Clearer in both cases than the difference between "rape" and "sexual assualt" discussed above. For example I've never heard of anyone being convicted of "sexual assault" against someone that they never physically touched.

So it would require a team of researchers with either a remarkably poor grasp of language or law, shocking poor methodology or a blatent hidden agenda to disgregard this distinction. In which case their credibility would have to be extremely questionable.

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

Err.. No. But thanks for 'correcting' someone whose been studying cognitive psychology for the last five years on what can and can't be done with statistics.

If you have something to say about the subject, all you have to do is say it. Pardon me if I decline the opportunity to stroke your ego.

A separate though related question. I remember a young, underage, woman who was found out to have relationship with a young though of age male, who saw this young man going to prison for it. There was no question of abuse of power or rape, and what was this woman (or the man, for that matter) to conclude from this situation? That she WAS raped even though she in her mind consented?

I suppose that would depend what he went to prison for. Presumeably it was for having sex with a minor, not for rape. In which case I can't see why she would conclude that. If she's reasonably intelligent, she would conclude that society says it's wrong to have sex with people under a certain age, even when they do consent.

Is there anything you are knowledgeable on? It's statutory rape, because the law says people underage can't give consent.

[/quote]

No it doesn't.

In the UK for example, "statutory rape" only applies to children under the age of 13, I think. It's certainly not the general "under-age" marker of 16, anyway. In other jurisdictions, similar distinctions often apply, with "statutory rape" often being a graver crime than simply sex with someone under the normal age of consent. To get back to your original question, what she would conclude is that the law doesn't recognise the concept of consent from an under-13-year-old (or whatever it was). Which makes sense to me.

Anyway, that's why I said "I suppose that would depend what he went to prison for." Because I don't know. You're always welcome to clarify if you get tired of resorting to insults instead.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

it would require a team of researchers with either a remarkably poor grasp of language or law, shocking poor methodology or a blatent hidden agenda to disgregard this distinction. In which case their credibility would have to be extremely questionable.

Agreed. Question. If I read such a study and they came at a one in four figure following this manipulation of data, what would you conclude when you saw this figure repeated elsewhere?

Aside from questions of content validity, and the degree to which 'sexual abuse' represents what it said to represent by the laymen, there are questions about the accuracy of data. Rape is an overreported and underreported phenomenon. That seems contradictory, but it is not. Many women do not report rape, and as awful as it sounds, sometimes no rape occurred and women report rape anyway.

That's probably true. But then it's gonna be true of any study of human behaviour. It's well known among sociologists, statisticians etc that inaccuracies and biases in self-reporting are one of the biggest hurdles in getting meaningful information out of people about their own experiences. There are ways of overcoming this hurdle and I'm not aware that they're any less known to, or less successfully implemented by, those studying rape than those studying any other phenomenon.

Err.. No. But thanks for 'correcting' someone whose been studying cognitive psychology for the last five years on what can and can't be done with statistics.

If you have something to say about the subject, all you have to do is say it. Pardon me if I decline the opportunity to stroke your ego.[/quote]

I did say it, and you attempted to correct me. No, these are special conditions that make research into rape hard, harder than research in many other subjects. What you were saying was in error. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with my ego. There's nothing egotistical about saying that you have a substantial experience in cognitive psychology when someone tries to correct you, in error, on a statistical subject that pertains to that field.

In the UK for example, "statutory rape" only applies to children under the age of 13, I think. It's certainly not the general "under-age" marker of 16, anyway.

Age of consent in the UK is sixteen. Meaning that people under sixteen are unable - according to the law - to consent to sexual conduct. Even if it is not called statutory rape in UK law, the important part here is 'age of consent'.

In other jurisdictions, similar distinctions often apply, with "statutory rape" often being a graver crime than simply sex with someone under the normal age of consent.

This is not how statutory rape is generally defined. In fact, I've never seen it defined like that. Take wikipedia: "The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe sexual activities where one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.
The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime."

To get back to your original question, what she would conclude is that the law doesn't recognise the concept of consent from an under-13-year-old (or whatever it was). Which makes sense to me.

In Britain, this would be 16. It's somewhat disturbing that you are not aware of the laws of your own country.

Anyway, that's why I said "I suppose that would depend what he went to prison for." Because I don't know. You're always welcome to clarify if you get tired of resorting to insults instead.

What insults? I suppose I should not be surprised that this part of your post is dissimulation as well.

[Beatsong]

it would require a team of researchers with either a remarkably poor grasp of language or law, shocking poor methodology or a blatent hidden agenda to disgregard this distinction. In which case their credibility would have to be extremely questionable.

Agreed. Question. If I read such a study and they came at a one in four figure following this manipulation of data, what would you conclude when you saw this figure repeated elsewhere?

To be honest I probably wouldn't suspect that the manipulation of data had occurred, since the idea of including verbal comments as sexual assault seems so utterly absurd to me. If someone alerted me to it, I'd want to read the study to check for myself, and if it were that warped then I'd reject the findings outright.

I did say it, and you attempted to correct me. No, these are special conditions that make research into rape hard, harder than research in many other subjects. What you were saying was in error. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with my ego. There's nothing egotistical about saying that you have a substantial experience in cognitive psychology when someone tries to correct you, in error, on a statistical subject that pertains to that field.

I don't know what anyone else has said but I'm not obsessed with your ego. However you abruptly changed the subject from the topic itself to your authority to speak about it. I have two problems with that. The first is that I don't recognise "argument from authority" as a valid justification for any statement. If I did I'd probably be one of those idiots that believes in God or something Sorry, but you can be the most respected psychologist and statistician in the world, and "this is so because I say so" will still mean nothing to me.

The second problem is that this is the internet, and while many of us have built up a certain amount of background knowledge about each other and what we supposedly do, in reality you could be a 15-year-old in your mother's basement who stacks shelves for Tesco, for all I know.

What you've said above OTOH, about "special conditions that make research into rape harder than research in many other subjects" is very interesting, and pertinent. So I'd be interested to know more about what these are.

To get back to your original question, what she would conclude is that the law doesn't recognise the concept of consent from an under-13-year-old (or whatever it was). Which makes sense to me.

In Britain, this would be 16. It's somewhat disturbing that you are not aware of the laws of your own country.

I was referring to your reference to "statutory rape". As I understand it, in the UK this term only applies when the victim is under the age of 13, not 16. Even though sex with someone under 16 is illegal, the law - AFAIK - DOES recognise the concept of consent in this case, since SEX with a 15-year-old is a different crime from RAPE of a 15-year-old.

I think.

As for my knowledge... I'm not a lawyer, and not in the habit of having sex with teenage girls. So it's not an area I've ever needed to investigate with any thoroughness.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

it would require a team of researchers with either a remarkably poor grasp of language or law, shocking poor methodology or a blatent hidden agenda to disgregard this distinction. In which case their credibility would have to be extremely questionable.

Agreed. Question. If I read such a study and they came at a one in four figure following this manipulation of data, what would you conclude when you saw this figure repeated elsewhere?

To be honest I probably wouldn't suspect that the manipulation of data had occurred, since the idea of including verbal comments as sexual assault seems so utterly absurd to me. If someone alerted me to it, I'd want to read the study to check for myself, and if it were that warped then I'd reject the findings outright.

I did say it, and you attempted to correct me. No, these are special conditions that make research into rape hard, harder than research in many other subjects. What you were saying was in error. I don't understand why people are so obsessed with my ego. There's nothing egotistical about saying that you have a substantial experience in cognitive psychology when someone tries to correct you, in error, on a statistical subject that pertains to that field.

I don't know what anyone else has said but I'm not obsessed with your ego. However you abruptly changed the subject from the topic itself to your authority to speak about it. I have two problems with that. The first is that I don't recognise "argument from authority" as a valid justification for any statement.

I'm going to say this only once. You, however, may read it many times and I hope you do. The argument from authority is this: "Augustine was a virtuous man, a great man, he said that god existed, Augustine can not be wrong, so God exists". An argument from authority is deriving truth from authority, not trusting authority. The fact that you find my history in cognitive psychology uninteresting when considering your opinion next to mine shows that you have an inflated opinion of your, haha, opinion, not that I have some problem with an ego.

If I did I'd probably be one of those idiots that believes in God or something Sorry, but you can be the most respected psychologist and statistician in the world, and "this is so because I say so" will still mean nothing to me.

I don't have to be respected in psychology or statistics to make these claims here. What you are saying is so demonstratively wrong a bartender could pick it up.

The second problem is that this is the internet, and while many of us have built up a certain amount of background knowledge about each other and what we supposedly do, in reality you could be a 15-year-old in your mother's basement who stacks shelves for Tesco, for all I know.

An argument I have often heard, but is deeply flawed. I am a third dan Judo. If you were to claim expertise in Judo and step unto the mat, I would recognise in a minute whether you had expertise or not. The same applies to my dissertation of information here. Speak to other people that have an understand in psychology, they will indicate that they see I have knowledge in that area. You may be attuned to not detecting this, your bullshit meter may need calibration - that's hardly my problem. If you believe me to be a 15-year-old in my mother's basement from my posts in this thread and elsewhere, I would say that you have such limited understanding and appreciation of wisdom and knowledge you might as well be.

What you've said above OTOH, about "special conditions that make research into rape harder than research in many other subjects" is very interesting, and pertinent. So I'd be interested to know more about what these are.

I've already described them. Under-estimation, over-estimation (which you discarded as if you had any qualification to correct me) but it's also difficult to censor rapists as they will either deny their crimes or make up crimes to increase standing in the penal system. Try censoring the number of paedophiles in the population with a questionnaire and see if you run into any methodological problems.

To get back to your original question, what she would conclude is that the law doesn't recognise the concept of consent from an under-13-year-old (or whatever it was). Which makes sense to me.

In Britain, this would be 16. It's somewhat disturbing that you are not aware of the laws of your own country.

I was referring to your reference to "statutory rape". As I understand it, in the UK this term only applies when the victim is under the age of 13, not 16. Even though sex with someone under 16 is illegal, the law - AFAIK - DOES recognise the concept of consent in this case, since SEX with a 15-year-old is a different crime from RAPE of a 15-year-old.

I don't think statutory rape is a term within UK legislation. More importantly, under 16 year olds are under the age of consent in the UK, which is what I indicated. The point is that since a 15 year old can not consent to sex, it is always rape. There may be different categories. I suggest you consult philosophy of law for this. You and I may very well disagree, but that is the general understanding.

I think.

As for my knowledge... I'm not a lawyer, and not in the habit of having sex with teenage girls. So it's not an area I've ever needed to investigate with any thoroughness.

Well, I hope you are having sex some way.

[Rum]

In the UK it is slightly more complicated from a child protection point of view (I know because it is part of my job to know). The 'abuse' element is important. Two 14 year olds who had sex would generally not lead to any legal action for example. A thirty year old having sex with a 13 or 14 year old almost certainly would. Vulnerability and the abuse of responsibility and power is the key factor in our law.

And yes, you are right 'statutory rape' is not a legal term in the UK.