Having lots of sexual partners is more correlated to STI. Thus, reducing number of sexual partners reduces STI.
Correct, but if those STIs are obtained when you are a mentally developed person that understands the long term effects of STIs, it is less important than someone who doesn't know what they are signing up for. You have some adults stupid enough to spend $40K/year on college; there are colleges where they can go that are a lot cheaper.
So do you agree that its better if less children get abused?
Yes.
A map being bonded to one child is less likely to have 300 partners.
You said in Afghanistan, some pedophiles there have 300 sexual partners (all of which they are married too because Afghanistan law prohibits premarital sex). I don't know how you marry 300 people, but apparently, you said it happens.
And adoption is usually for couples, so instead of two maps each abusing many children, you would have two maps abusing one child.
It's not ok to abuse children that you adopt.
People are more likely to respect regulation if regulation exists.
That's not always true. Up until recently, weed was illegal in my state. Then they legalized it for people at least 21. Young people are consuming weed in my state more I think than previously when weed was banned for everyone, although I'm not sure if this is true.
"A Johns Hopkins University study found that children in foster care are four times more likely than other children to be
sexually abused, and those who live in group homes experience an abuse rate of 28 times those of other children. There are indicators that children living in a foster care situation may be more likely to experience abuse at the hands of their foster parents or other people living in the home."
The 2 paragraphs before this were anecdotes. But you are suggesting transferring kids from one source of potential child rape (state run orphaniches with a pedophille employee) to another potential source of child rape (a pedophile foster parent). There are 2 possibilities:
- This increases the rate of child sex abuse by X% (X>0). I this is the case, then the idea was a tried plan, it didn't work, and it gets dropped.
- This decreases the rate of child sex abuse by X% (X>0). If this is the case, then I would support the idea and I hope more people do and this policy should stick around.
The only way to know for certain is to experiment with it (it should be a state by state experiment to minimize the bad effects of the experiment if it goes south). Experiments should be run to see what happens. But you need a few states to be willing to run the experiment, and those leaders of those states aren't going to get elected by their representatives, who get emotional whenever kids get experimented on (even if the goal is to reduce child rape in the long term). People aren't logical or rationale with their kids. Everyone wants other people to do the experiment so their kids are less likely to face child rape if the results are successful in reducing child rape, but nobody personally wants their state to be the one that has the experiment done.
About 15% of children get sexually abused before 18.
My family has 3 kids. If 15% of kids get sexually abused before 18, that means 85% don't. .85^3=.6141, 1-.6141=.3858. This means my family has a 39% chance of having at least one kid get sexually abused (and that's just out of the people willing to admit it). It might have been me, but my level of abuse wasn't severe enough for me to report it to the cops. It's not that I'm scared of repurccions, I just don't feel like it victimized me. But all the other people who are in a situation like me have parents that like laying on top of kids but it doesn't scar them to the extent of reporting it to the cops. I wasn't naked or anything like that. It was my Dad just laying on me when I was like 8, clothes on (both of us). It wasn't what I would imagine child rape was. But I think the 15% figure is definitely massively inflated; otherwise pedophilia wouldn't be so prosecuted in society because it would be very common. If something is common enough, it doesn't matter if it's homicide, society will accept it (like eating meat, where society uses human supremacy arguments they wouldn't use if meat eating was as rare as conventional homicide).
The report usually comes from others who find out about relationship.
I could believe though that there are times when a child shouldn't get liberty but should get security because children do not know what's best for them; their parents would. Is it ok for a child to do what they consent to if it doesn't harm anyone else if that means eating 100 Oreos a day? What about heroin? They aren't harming anybody else. At least the Oreo addiction is pretty breakable; once you lose your virginity (I would assume), it's very hard to stay abstinent after that and it leads to an addiction that kids aren't really ready to handle.
You can maybe give your kid maybe 10 Oreos occasionally, but 100 every day is crazy whether the kid would like that or not.
Children should get security more than liberty relative to adults.
Most map wont punch a kid or beat a kid up.
Most adults don't punch 8 year olds, so it's not a fair comparison.
Most map wont force themselves on a child. In fact, judging from statistics, most map wont even use threats to get what they want.
What statistic are you referring too?
