70% of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men; only 30% are fathered by
teenagers. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1992; California Center for Health Statistics,
1993).
19% of pregnant teenagers had partners 6 years older or more (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994)
Of the pregnant teenagers had had an unwanted sexual experience, the ages of the perpetrators
were:
o 18% were within two years of the victim’s age
o 18% were 3-5 years older than the victim
o 17% were 6-10 years older than the victim
o 40% were more than ten years older than the victim (Gershenson et. al., 1989)
Yep, my ex’s first husband first knocked her up in his 20s when she was 17. You’ll never guess which one decades later supports accessible abortion for teenagers…
Kinda stands to reason that the vast majority of child pregnancies are the result of inappropriate sexual contact, but it is still alarming to see the numbers pointing out HOW inappropriate.
First, it is 32 to 37 years out of date. Social norms have shifted drastically. At the time of these studies, The Cosby Show was the highest rated show on TV.
Second:
70% of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men; only 30% are fathered by teenagers.
The majority of these 1980s/1990s cases were 19-year-old “teenagers” and their 20-year-old partners. The mean age of motherhood in the 1970s was only 20.2 years. As many girls below that age were becoming mothers as women above that age. (That puts the mean age of conception at 19.5 years, making teenage pregnancy the norm)
Motherhood age rose slightly through the 1990s, and jumped in the early 2000s. It’s currently 27.5 years and rising fast.
Third:
Of the pregnant teenagers had had an unwanted sexual experience,
The “unwanted” criterion might be doing a lot of work here. It might be including only a tiny percentage of all pregnancies. The greater the age difference, the more likely the experience was “unwanted”. This criterion might be capturing 100% of pregnancies with >10 year difference, but only 5% of pregnancies with <2 year difference. The overwhelming majority of the aforementioned 19/20 families aren’t being counted.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Of course you don’t need much data to prove that. You need extraordinarily little data to support your point. Everyone knows your point is perfectly valid: rape has not been eliminated. Child rape has not been eliminated. Underage pregnancy has not been eliminated. These are all problems that this data does not quantify.
You seem to think I am arguing that rape no longer exists. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that this data doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about either rape or teenage pregnancy. From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
I guess its a super good thing that no one is talking about theft or cannibalism. Weird that you felt that making up a completely arbitrary criteria made sense as you move out all the stops to do everything you can to minimize child rape.
Why is this so important to you that you are willing to make such spurious arguments?
Ok, I’ll try again: Based on this data, please tell me how many children were pregnant from rape when this data was compiled.
Obviously, one is too many.
However, the solution for one case of child rape per year is to capture the rapist and jail them for life. Let the survivor guide us on how to help her.
The solution for 60 million cases of child rape per year is prophylactic chemical castration of all males. It is far too prevalent to leave to the criminal justice system; we must take drastic, proactive measures to end such an atrocity.
So, are we building a couple prison cells, or are we putting the drugs in the water?
This data does not give us any insight whatsoever into the scale of the problem. It provides no insight into a solution. It brings confusion to the discussion, not clarity.
Why is it so important to you that this particular data should be somehow exempt from criticism?
You can’t honestly believe that’s what he’s saying. That pointing out the data being posted is very old and thus not inherently indicative of modern society, somehow means the issue is resolved?
That data could still be accurate but with 30+ years of societal changes, including a dramatic shift in the median age of pregnancies, it should be assumed it is no longer accurate. It could be, but you should assume old data like that is no longer accurate, regardless of the specific topic of discussion.
That does NOT say what you’re implying. At no point in his post does he say anything was fixed or solved. That says the 30 year old data was representative at the time, not necessarily that it represents things now. Many things have changed in 30 years. 30 years ago the World Wide Web basically didn’t exist, and what little did exist was small and accessed primarily via dial-up. Hell, HTML was created in 1993, 33 years ago. That’s the time frame we’re talking about here.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think simply pointing out that many things have changed in 30 years and that using data that old without any new data to compare it to inherently means that we “fixed” something. That’s your assumption based on a few sentences that literally say none of that.
Are you trying to say that society hasn’t changed at all since the beginning of the World Wide Web? That someone saying that specific data that old may not be accurate to current society anymore?
What kind of logic is that, of course it does exist - its just that your data has the capacity to be severely incorrect. The only one playing pretend is you, because this whole thing is about your original analysis not playing pretend that it “doesnt” exist.
Current trends would still include rape and sexual assault though at lower levels.
What’s your point here? Just getting your jollies off on making sure I know I’m wrong and that pregnant 12 year olds are only getting pregnant from other 12 year olds these days?
I think you misunderstood me. My criticism is of this particular data. This particular data is so terrible that it doesn’t even support the claim that any underage person has ever been pregnant!
To make any reasonable conclusions about the state of underage and teenage pregnancy, we have to go outside this particular data, because this data, as presented here, is total garbage.
Research suggests that multiple factors have led to lower teen birth rates in the United States. From the 1990s through 2019, the risk of teen pregnancy decreased primarily because of improved contraceptive use, including an increase in the use of more effective contraceptive methods (e.g., long-acting and reversible methods) and an increase in the use of multiple methods of contraception. During this period, some of the risk of pregnancy among younger teens declined because of decreased sexual activity; however, general trends in adolescent sexual activity have remained relatively stable. Broad economic and social variables may also influence teen behaviors, such as expanded educational or labor opportunities.
12 year olds still being raped and impregnated is bleak.
Indeed. However, the cited data doesn’t tell us anything about child rape. Sexual activity between two adolescents is not statutory rape. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
You can pretend like underage pregnancies are all from consensual underage sex, but I’m not going to close my eyes to truths of the world.
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. My point was only that the data presented is not representative of the current state. We have every reason to believe that the cited numbers were recorded at or near their peak, and that they have fallen precipitously in the past 30+ years.
You also claimed those studies say nothing about child rape when it clearly shows adult men impregnate children.
And curiously enough tried to claim that underage pregnancy is no longer bleak.
Edit: what’s your point here? If it was just to point out the data is older, fine. Why are you pushing this idea that underage pregnancies are nothing to be worried about anymore and that it’s not bleak to have children being impregnated?
Do you really believe that because the rates have fallen that it’s not a concern or that it doesn’t occur?
Fair. I should have said that the cited data provides no data quantifying the prevalence of child rape. From the cited data, you cannot tell me if it was derived from 60 cases or 60 million. From that data, you cannot tell me the scale of the problem. From that data, you cannot tell me how it stacks up to, say, murder, or cannibalism.
I can say that whatever it was in the early 1990’s, it is far better now.
What we can say from this data is that 100% of the cases it studies are rape. This data does not count all rapes: It counts only those rapes that have resulted in pregnancy. It doesn’t count all teenage pregnancies: It doesn’t count a case where two adolescents agree to have sex, and that sex results in pregnancy.
This particular data does not even support a claim that adults are having sex with children! That’s the problem I am talking about. You have to go outside this data to make any meaningful conclusion. That is how terrible this data is.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Thats the conclusion which should’ve been included within op’s statement. Honestly such an outdated statistic is a poor indication of the status quo - because it isn’t the status quo. OP may imply various repeated statements however it doesn’t magically supplement the facts and statistics which exist today.
Within the research scene, OPs statement would be framed as misinformation due to its age - this factor alone is responsible here, so there is no room in twisting the logic here.
Just because it has decreased doesn’t mean that rape and sexual assaults don’t happen to teenagers and children anymore.
Yet again, you’re missing the point. This conclusion was already stated by countless of oppositions to your argument.
The main point is the fact that your research is invalid to explain the status quo - its the logic thats the problem not that “rape has somehow evaporated from existence”.
The point of the post is that a pregnant 12 year old is most likely a rape victim and finding the rapist should take precedence over preventing a child from getting an abortion.
Note that the first 36% (43% if you include the implied 7% where the father is more than two years younger) includes age pairings like 19/22, and many people would include something like 18/24 as somewhat acceptable. Underage pregnancies should really be tracked separately from teenage pregnancies.
Also, teenage pregnancy and violent crime are both way down from 1989 (crime more than 50% and teenage pregnancy about 75%). I wonder if/how those two factors would affect the numbers in a modern study.
Teen pregnancy is lower for sure thanks in large part to access to contraception. It’s not because sexual activity and rape went down.
It’s not only because of that, but it seems highly likely that that contributed. Impregnating children is, as you noted, almost always a sex crime, and sex crime is down by half. It’s certainly possible that the entire decrease was in crimes against adults and AMAB children, but that seems unlikely.
I’m still confident based on all the available information that the majority of 12 year olds that find themselves pregnant are victims of men.
Absolutely, but 12-year-olds are not teenagers. The study you cited doesn’t actually include anyone who gives birth at 12. That’s one more reason to track underage pregnancies separately. 18/19-year-olds skew the numbers because they’re above the age of consent, and girls below 13 don’t contribute.
There’s a lack of information to really nail down the statistics here. A lot of that is because rape and sexual assault aren’t reported in very high numbers.
So it would track based off this information that includes 13 year olds that it is similar for 12 year olds. And I stand by my statement that most pregnant 12 year olds are victims.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
You’ll note that I quoted a bit more. That was for a reason: the part I took issue with was the “it’s not because of…”
So it would track based off this information that includes 13 year olds that it is similar for 12 year olds.
Perhaps, but it might not be. Those 13-year-olds are mixed in with 19-year-olds, whose circumstances are likely far different.
And I stand by my statement that most pregnant 12 year olds are victims.
You keep restating this as if anyone disagreed with you. I explicitly agreed in the comment to which you’re replying.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
And you’re citing data as if it were much more applicable than it is. Data for 12-year-olds is likely worse, no one is denying that, but it’s still a weak argument to cite data that doesn’t include the age group in question, does include age groups with far different circumstances, and is from a time when the two phenomena in question (violent sex crimes and teenage pregnancy) were two and four times higher respectively.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
Then why even attempt to supply evidence to the debate if you’re going to dismiss critiques of it later?
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
I was replying to someone making a “not all men” type of argument.
Sexual assault and rape aren’t reported in high enough numbers to get super accurate data.
Again, I’m aware Lemmings overwhelmingly want to pretend that men are just misunderstood and feminists are all misandrists and logic is superior over all others.
I’ll let you have your pedantic little fits about the technicalities of child rape and impregnation. I’m done engaging with you.
I do suggest you add a disclaimer that your research may be slightly outdated. This of course, doesn’t invalidate it; however, clarity is important here as this can be on the verge of misinformation.
I do respect that this problem has been addressed, so well done.
This doesn’t necessarily make it appear as a disclaimer, but rather a reference. The premise doesn’t state that this may or may not be outdated - it gives the impression that it is the truth, despite the year.
Yeah 12 year olds have only gotten more sexually adventurous and really, really want to get pregnant since then. Practically asking for it, y’know. Preteens just looooove taking old man dick.
I understand you want to pedantic and technically correct here. The truth is that most 12 year olds that are pregnant are victims.
Yep, my ex’s first husband first knocked her up in his 20s when she was 17. You’ll never guess which one decades later supports accessible abortion for teenagers…
Well that’s fucking bleak.
Kinda stands to reason that the vast majority of child pregnancies are the result of inappropriate sexual contact, but it is still alarming to see the numbers pointing out HOW inappropriate.
Yeah it’s really bleak. That’s why I don’t like seeing such casual whataboutism when it comes to young girls and their sexual activity.
It’s very “not all men”
I don’t put much stock in this data.
First, it is 32 to 37 years out of date. Social norms have shifted drastically. At the time of these studies, The Cosby Show was the highest rated show on TV.
Second:
The majority of these 1980s/1990s cases were 19-year-old “teenagers” and their 20-year-old partners. The mean age of motherhood in the 1970s was only 20.2 years. As many girls below that age were becoming mothers as women above that age. (That puts the mean age of conception at 19.5 years, making teenage pregnancy the norm)
Motherhood age rose slightly through the 1990s, and jumped in the early 2000s. It’s currently 27.5 years and rising fast.
Third:
The “unwanted” criterion might be doing a lot of work here. It might be including only a tiny percentage of all pregnancies. The greater the age difference, the more likely the experience was “unwanted”. This criterion might be capturing 100% of pregnancies with >10 year difference, but only 5% of pregnancies with <2 year difference. The overwhelming majority of the aforementioned 19/20 families aren’t being counted.
It’s reasonable to say that it was bleak. It is not reasonable to say that it is bleak. This historical data does not reflect current trends.
Nothing is stopping you from posting actual data instead of just whining that this is too old.
You are similarly empowered.
Sure, except that I didn’t think I actually need much data to prove the rape didn’t disappear in the last twenty years.
Of course you don’t need much data to prove that. You need extraordinarily little data to support your point. Everyone knows your point is perfectly valid: rape has not been eliminated. Child rape has not been eliminated. Underage pregnancy has not been eliminated. These are all problems that this data does not quantify.
You seem to think I am arguing that rape no longer exists. That is not what I am arguing. What I am arguing is that this data doesn’t actually tell us a damn thing about either rape or teenage pregnancy. From the data presented here, we cannot determine if rape is more common than theft, or rarer than cannibalism.
As presented, this data is meaningless garbage.
I guess its a super good thing that no one is talking about theft or cannibalism. Weird that you felt that making up a completely arbitrary criteria made sense as you move out all the stops to do everything you can to minimize child rape.
Why is this so important to you that you are willing to make such spurious arguments?
Ok, I’ll try again: Based on this data, please tell me how many children were pregnant from rape when this data was compiled.
Obviously, one is too many.
However, the solution for one case of child rape per year is to capture the rapist and jail them for life. Let the survivor guide us on how to help her.
The solution for 60 million cases of child rape per year is prophylactic chemical castration of all males. It is far too prevalent to leave to the criminal justice system; we must take drastic, proactive measures to end such an atrocity.
So, are we building a couple prison cells, or are we putting the drugs in the water?
This data does not give us any insight whatsoever into the scale of the problem. It provides no insight into a solution. It brings confusion to the discussion, not clarity.
Why is it so important to you that this particular data should be somehow exempt from criticism?
He’s straight up pretending like child rape doesn’t exist anymore.
Seriously. Dude is literally taking the position that we “solved rape” with zero support just because the last data he saw is old.
You can’t honestly believe that’s what he’s saying. That pointing out the data being posted is very old and thus not inherently indicative of modern society, somehow means the issue is resolved?
That data could still be accurate but with 30+ years of societal changes, including a dramatic shift in the median age of pregnancies, it should be assumed it is no longer accurate. It could be, but you should assume old data like that is no longer accurate, regardless of the specific topic of discussion.
Literally his actual position:
That does NOT say what you’re implying. At no point in his post does he say anything was fixed or solved. That says the 30 year old data was representative at the time, not necessarily that it represents things now. Many things have changed in 30 years. 30 years ago the World Wide Web basically didn’t exist, and what little did exist was small and accessed primarily via dial-up. Hell, HTML was created in 1993, 33 years ago. That’s the time frame we’re talking about here.
Your reading comprehension is lacking if you think simply pointing out that many things have changed in 30 years and that using data that old without any new data to compare it to inherently means that we “fixed” something. That’s your assumption based on a few sentences that literally say none of that.
Are you trying to say that society hasn’t changed at all since the beginning of the World Wide Web? That someone saying that specific data that old may not be accurate to current society anymore?
What kind of logic is that, of course it does exist - its just that your data has the capacity to be severely incorrect. The only one playing pretend is you, because this whole thing is about your original analysis not playing pretend that it “doesnt” exist.
And they had said that it is not reasonable to say that teenage and underage pregnancies are bleak anymore.
Which is why I quoted their comment.
I think reading this last line would’ve been helpful here.
Current trends would still include rape and sexual assault though at lower levels.
What’s your point here? Just getting your jollies off on making sure I know I’m wrong and that pregnant 12 year olds are only getting pregnant from other 12 year olds these days?
I think you misunderstood me. My criticism is of this particular data. This particular data is so terrible that it doesn’t even support the claim that any underage person has ever been pregnant!
To make any reasonable conclusions about the state of underage and teenage pregnancy, we have to go outside this particular data, because this data, as presented here, is total garbage.
Show me in this data where child rape still exists. Obviously, it does exist, but this data certainly doesn’t show it.
Technically, this data doesn’t even show that child rape ever existed. My point is simple: This data is trash.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45184
12 year olds still being raped and impregnated is bleak.
Contraception use has thankfully made teen pregnancies decline, but sexual activity remains relatively steady.
Regardless, the majority of 12 year olds who find themselves pregnant are victims.
Indeed. However, the cited data doesn’t tell us anything about child rape. Sexual activity between two adolescents is not statutory rape. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
Majority of rape and sexual assault aren’t going to appear in hard numbers like this because of lack of reporting.
You can pretend like underage pregnancies are all from consensual underage sex, but I’m not going to close my eyes to truths of the world.
Also adult men having sex with underage girls IS rape.
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. My point was only that the data presented is not representative of the current state. We have every reason to believe that the cited numbers were recorded at or near their peak, and that they have fallen precipitously in the past 30+ years.
You also claimed those studies say nothing about child rape when it clearly shows adult men impregnate children.
And curiously enough tried to claim that underage pregnancy is no longer bleak.
Edit: what’s your point here? If it was just to point out the data is older, fine. Why are you pushing this idea that underage pregnancies are nothing to be worried about anymore and that it’s not bleak to have children being impregnated?
Do you really believe that because the rates have fallen that it’s not a concern or that it doesn’t occur?
Rereading the cited data again, it doesn’t actually say that adult men impregnate children.
Obviously, they do, but the presented data doesn’t support that conclusion.
Is there perhaps some data that you didn’t present that would support your argument? Did you miss something essential to your point?
Do these statistics refer to 60 19-year-old girls? 60 million 8-year-olds? How do you know? How would I know?
Fair. I should have said that the cited data provides no data quantifying the prevalence of child rape. From the cited data, you cannot tell me if it was derived from 60 cases or 60 million. From that data, you cannot tell me the scale of the problem. From that data, you cannot tell me how it stacks up to, say, murder, or cannibalism.
I can say that whatever it was in the early 1990’s, it is far better now.
I’m having a hard time understanding who are you trying to disprove with this statement:
I dont think OP even mentioned justifying rape. So what purpose do these straw men serve you?
Rivalarrival said that this doesn’t say anything about rape:
You can pretend like all of the teenagers in the study are 18 and 19 years old, but I would counter that would be a faulty assumption.
Adult men having sex with underage children is rape.
Now I believe they where talking about this: https://lemmy.today/comment/23688619
But I do understand where you’re coming from in this case.
What we can say from this data is that 100% of the cases it studies are rape. This data does not count all rapes: It counts only those rapes that have resulted in pregnancy. It doesn’t count all teenage pregnancies: It doesn’t count a case where two adolescents agree to have sex, and that sex results in pregnancy.
This particular data does not even support a claim that adults are having sex with children! That’s the problem I am talking about. You have to go outside this data to make any meaningful conclusion. That is how terrible this data is.
Thats the conclusion which should’ve been included within op’s statement. Honestly such an outdated statistic is a poor indication of the status quo - because it isn’t the status quo. OP may imply various repeated statements however it doesn’t magically supplement the facts and statistics which exist today.
Within the research scene, OPs statement would be framed as misinformation due to its age - this factor alone is responsible here, so there is no room in twisting the logic here.
There isn’t a more current study on this topic that I could reasonably find.
Just because it has decreased doesn’t mean that rape and sexual assaults don’t happen to teenagers and children anymore.
Yet again, you’re missing the point. This conclusion was already stated by countless of oppositions to your argument.
The main point is the fact that your research is invalid to explain the status quo - its the logic thats the problem not that “rape has somehow evaporated from existence”.
The point of the post is that a pregnant 12 year old is most likely a rape victim and finding the rapist should take precedence over preventing a child from getting an abortion.
The data in question does not support that point.
That doesn’t mean the point is invalid.
Including this particular data detracts from this point. Either find a point that this data does support, or don’t use this particular data.
Note that the first 36% (43% if you include the implied 7% where the father is more than two years younger) includes age pairings like 19/22, and many people would include something like 18/24 as somewhat acceptable. Underage pregnancies should really be tracked separately from teenage pregnancies.
Also, teenage pregnancy and violent crime are both way down from 1989 (crime more than 50% and teenage pregnancy about 75%). I wonder if/how those two factors would affect the numbers in a modern study.
I tried poking around for more recent comprehensive studies, but there wasn’t as much out there.
Teen pregnancy is lower for sure thanks in large part to access to contraception. It’s not because sexual activity and rape went down.
I’m still confident based on all the available information that the majority of 12 year olds that find themselves pregnant are victims of men.
It’s not only because of that, but it seems highly likely that that contributed. Impregnating children is, as you noted, almost always a sex crime, and sex crime is down by half. It’s certainly possible that the entire decrease was in crimes against adults and AMAB children, but that seems unlikely.
Absolutely, but 12-year-olds are not teenagers. The study you cited doesn’t actually include anyone who gives birth at 12. That’s one more reason to track underage pregnancies separately. 18/19-year-olds skew the numbers because they’re above the age of consent, and girls below 13 don’t contribute.
That’s why I said “thanks in LARGE PART TO”
There’s a lack of information to really nail down the statistics here. A lot of that is because rape and sexual assault aren’t reported in very high numbers.
So it would track based off this information that includes 13 year olds that it is similar for 12 year olds. And I stand by my statement that most pregnant 12 year olds are victims.
I don’t care for this pedantic, know-it-all type of debates on these topics. We’re talking about pregnant 12 year olds.
You’ll note that I quoted a bit more. That was for a reason: the part I took issue with was the “it’s not because of…”
Perhaps, but it might not be. Those 13-year-olds are mixed in with 19-year-olds, whose circumstances are likely far different.
You keep restating this as if anyone disagreed with you. I explicitly agreed in the comment to which you’re replying.
And you’re citing data as if it were much more applicable than it is. Data for 12-year-olds is likely worse, no one is denying that, but it’s still a weak argument to cite data that doesn’t include the age group in question, does include age groups with far different circumstances, and is from a time when the two phenomena in question (violent sex crimes and teenage pregnancy) were two and four times higher respectively.
Then why even attempt to supply evidence to the debate if you’re going to dismiss critiques of it later?
This is the point of research, and the thing is the ‘know-it-all’ type of debate ais all a result from your original statement. This isn’t about 12 year olds but the inherent logic within arguments.
I was replying to someone making a “not all men” type of argument.
Sexual assault and rape aren’t reported in high enough numbers to get super accurate data.
Again, I’m aware Lemmings overwhelmingly want to pretend that men are just misunderstood and feminists are all misandrists and logic is superior over all others.
I’ll let you have your pedantic little fits about the technicalities of child rape and impregnation. I’m done engaging with you.
I do suggest you add a disclaimer that your research may be slightly outdated. This of course, doesn’t invalidate it; however, clarity is important here as this can be on the verge of misinformation.
I do respect that this problem has been addressed, so well done.
The years of the studies are noted in my comment.
This doesn’t necessarily make it appear as a disclaimer, but rather a reference. The premise doesn’t state that this may or may not be outdated - it gives the impression that it is the truth, despite the year.
Yeah 12 year olds have only gotten more sexually adventurous and really, really want to get pregnant since then. Practically asking for it, y’know. Preteens just looooove taking old man dick.
I understand you want to pedantic and technically correct here. The truth is that most 12 year olds that are pregnant are victims.