You bring up a lot of the same old stuff. It wasn't convincing before, and it's not convincing now.

It's never convincing to one who doesn't want to listen, Ethan.

You say I'm anti-science. I've looked at that Newgon article and seen how you handle science: selectively, for your own ends. You decide I am ignoring science if I do not agree with your questionable interpretation of scientific results. You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

I expected one of your ideology to come back with no other reaction after reading (more likely, skimming) through the article. If the data collected does not meld with your ideological stance, then you dismiss it. When scientists with an objective mind do not defend emotionally driven ideology simply because it's popular when their data doesn't substantiate it. If a MAP happens to point that science out, as written and collated by the scientists, then they're being "selective" and using it for "their own ends" simply on account of the fact that they may benefit in a way that is inconvenient for the main party line of the status quo.

The point is, the information I mentioned is there, for those with an objective interest in the data as written by those who collected it. I don't expect you to be objective or to be convinced by anything science says. Others of more objective concerns, however, will see which of us is being selective, considering how you ignore major portions of recorded scientific analyses.

further research [showed] the results from the girls were "much more homogeneous" in comparison to the boys.

Even if the correct numbers for females were exactly at the male level, those numbers are 33% negative at the time, 26% negative later. They are still quite significant. Whenever I've had a sexual experience in my life, I've made sure the chances are right down around 0% that the woman is viewing it as a negative experience at the time.

First of all, nowhere in that excerpt were the above statistics reported. In fact, if you had read that often overlooked section of the meta-analysis, Rind clearly wrote: "The small magnitude of all effect size estimates implies that CSA effects or correlates in the college population are not intense for any of the 18 metaanalyzed symptoms."

I think it's quite important to point this out, since any such negativity was not intense, and it can often be accounted for as sociogenic factors, such as feelings of shame and guilt, all for enjoying activity that society says they shouldn't. This is often discussed here, and these same types of outliers could occur with women who have pre-marital sex with men. However, since they are legal adults, we don't suggest they should be prohibited for making such choices because they might feel guilt, nor would the man be blamed and arrested for it.

Yet you accuse me of selective interpretation? Again, the data is there for anyone who cares to read it objectively.

I also note that consent here is as perceived and recollected by the girls. It is quite likely that the men experienced these same interactions as consensual. I do not trust men to properly perceive girls' consent.

Bingo. As noted often in the past, this is the main moralistic basis of your attitude: Massive mistrust of adults in general, and men in particular. On the one hand, you consider girls too inherently meek to communicate if they don't want to start or continue in sexual activity with a man (always a man, natch!). And on the other hand, you flagrantly mistrust men, and consider them too stupid or too slavish to their loins to pick up on it when a girl is obviously not into an intimate encounter--including if she is passively resisting by sitting still and not responding in any way to his advances--or, more likely considering the misandry implicit in this statement, that they are typically too self-centered to care about those obvious cues in the first place.

I'll reiterate what I said before: Laws based on extreme distrust for a certain group on a pre-emptive basis only result in draconian legislation. And yes, I think this again makes it clear that I'm not being unreasonable in saying that your main concerns are moralistic and ideological, with moral biases based on gender and age; and that as a result, you will ignore or dismiss any scientific data that may contradict your moralizing assumptions.

Regarding Sandfort, you say I do not pay attention to what the boys say, because they might be "wrong" in the long run

My principal objection is not that at all, it is that the sample was self-selected. Men were invited to show up with boys they were involved with, and it's a fair bet that if they thought the boy might say something too negative, they wouldn't have come. Even being in that population that heard about the study is selecting for relatively good situations.

This conclusion of yours is truly grasping at straws, Ethan. You are so intent on presuming that such relationships must be filled to the brim with negativity, that you call those who report good intentions suspect, whether based on alleged self-selectivity or anything else you can think of. How could those men have known for a fact that their younger boyfriends wouldn't have said anything negative? Why didn't large numbers of boys who had been in past relationships not shown up and reported such to Sandfort? If they did, he had no personal or professional reason not to report it. Why didn't the individuals interviewed by Rind et al. on their own, many years after the liaisons in question had ended, report a huge amount of negativity when consent was specifically asked about? That adds quite a bit of validity to Sandfort's methods, especially since in most studies, those interviews are conducted in the absence of adult male significant others.

Again, the collected data does not indicate that these relationships/liaisons have any inherent negativity to them that suggests a heavily enforced, across the board ban on them is warranted. You also frequently bring up statements that make it clear your mistrust of adults in general and men in particular is the driving force of your stance, which is moral and ideological, not anywhere based in science. Laws passed on such a basis are examples of blatant discrimination, and they can only be gotten away with in today's day and age because people under 18 lack the civil rights to resist it.

I must say, I'm quite thankful that women 18 and over have earned their civil rights over the course of the past century and a half, otherwise I could scarcely imagine how you would want their sexual choices regulated... for their "own good," of course. And I'm sure if I protested under such conditions, you would argue that I was displaying self-interest based on the fact that I'm a heterosexual male who was only concerned with satisfying his carnal urges, and not the best interests of women or society in general.