“Looking for scientific evidence that harm was done before determining that it was wrong is just looking for excuses to justify it.”
Allow me, for the purpose of discussion to overlook your claim that my question was “an excuse to justify it”.
Before we pass laws regarding anything, we should ask for the facts justifying the extension of government. And, make no mistake, another law IS extension of government.
As an example, “Cap and Trade” is in trouble because we question the premises of the law. I asked for the facts because the general history of man runs contrary to the premise that the boy was “damaged”.
Those justifying a law which is counter to the general experience of man should be willing to justify their position. And, it has been the general experience of man that post puberty boys are mostly equipped with an overly active sex drive and a grossly underdeveloped sexual morality.
Whether their explorations damages them, or whether the loud and insistent claims that they must be damaged does the damage (assuming and damage can be demonstrated) is but one of a multitude of unanswered questions.
Ad hominum attacks are not really an answer, more an indication of a lack of any valid answer.
Hi GG, you seem to be catching a lot of flack for posing your question, but I think it was reasonable and deserves some discussion.
Just briefly, I came across the following facts;
“Of young men surveyed in the Adverse
Childhood Experiences Study, 29.9% reported
physical abuse; 16% reported sexual abuse;
7.6% reported emotional abuse; and 11.5%
reported witnessing family violence before they
were 18 years old. 2
• Adult males who have experienced child sexual
abuse, physical abuse, and/or witnessed family
violence, are more likely to act out sexually,
have sexual identity confusion, and contract an
STI.3
One third of juvenile delinquents, 40% of sex
offenders, and 76% of serial rapists reported
experiencing child sexual abuse.
Childhood victimization has been linked to alcohol
and drug dependence in adolescents and adults, as
well as aggressive and antisocial behavior.”
Granted, these appear to be focusing on abuse, rather than involvement in a relationship, say, with a girlfriend, but I suspect some of the end results would be the same.
More sexual aggression, more risky behavior, and general lack of discernment and discretion in choosing sexual partners.
Hope that helps.
For what it's worth.....
I have found your request for hard data articulate, simple, and reasonable.
As best I can determine from the responses to your request, the answer is NO.
There is no hard data available from this crowd.
So long as social mores and potential partner standards inhibit the exercise of those physical capabilities until the maturity of the individual has increased, the boys will spend more time talking about it than doing it.
Before condoms were given away in schools, many guys had one in their wallet by high school and it wore out there.
Being 14 in 1820 vs 1920 vs 1960 vs 1990 vs 2010 may have some physical similarities, but the ability of an individual to provide for and support a family (the social structure around them, the expectations of society--partly culturally based), and the sheer capability of the individual to survive and provide has changed, at 14, and we are talking about a very large (maturationally speaking) two year gap between twelve and fourteen.
Considering that most 12 year-olds today are hardly equipped to support offspring, I think the standard which makes most sense is one in which the generally culturally accepted age for coitus is one at which the parent is capable of supporting the child, all mores aside.
It is no coincidence that that general age usually is consistent with the age an individual is considered 'mature' enough to be a parent.
That age varies from individual to individual. I know people in their 40s who are still not mature enough to raise children, although one could make the argument that had they had children they might have matured more, out of necessity.
That, I believe to be a result of a culture in which maturation and responsibility have been grossly undervalued.
The reason it is difficult to quantify the 'damage' done to a young individual when an adult steps outside the accepted social moral envelope and engages in relations with someone far their junior is that it is difficult to ascertain how much of that damage lingers--it all depends on the individual.
Now, I'm no sociologist, no psychologist, and all I have to go on are the observations of watching generations grow and (sometimes) mature (I'm a great-grandfather), but I'd say there is damage done when anyone in a position of trust, in a supervisory or mentoring role becomes personally (sexually) engaged with someone in any circumstance which implies or develops expectations of an ongoing relationship and fails to deliver.
That happens at any age, but 'first loves' become the standard by which all others will be measured, and the deepest wounds come from the first betrayals. It is not until later that people develop the mechanisms to defend themselves from rejection or betrayal, but even those mechanisms will taint the relationships they have in the future.
Needless to say, most grade schoolers are still pretty vulnerable (12=sixth grade in most places).