this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
1674 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
11704 readers
3362 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?
Did you have a stroke when you wrote this?
Ok, I’ll try again: Based on this data, please tell me how many children were pregnant from rape when this data was compiled.
Too many? I guess I don't spend as much time thinking about children getting raped as you.
The only relevant part of your comment is the question mark.
He's straight up pretending like child rape doesn't exist anymore.
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.
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?
Exactly.
The most relevant data I can provide is the mean age of motherhood: the age of a woman when she has her first child.
The lowest age I can find was in the 1970s. It was probably lower in earlier decades, but the available data doesn't support it. In the 1970's, the mean age of motherhood was only 20.2 years.
**The average age of first conception was 19.5 years. The average woman was 6 months pregnant on her 20th birthday. More women were pregnant in their teens than not. **
That is a quantifiable statistic, and it is a bleak one. Fortunately, the mean age of motherhood has risen to 27.5 years, and is climbing rapidly.
The data in question is not quantifiable. From what was posted, we can determine the relative difference in the ages of rapists and their victims, but we cannot determine their actual ages. We don't know from this data if the ages in the typical case of 10-years difference were 19 and 29, or 9 and 19. From this questionable data, We can't even determine the prevalence. This data might be based on 6 cases, 60 cases, or 60 million cases. We cannot determine the scale of the problem from this data.
The rapidly rising age of motherhood tells me that however "bleak" the problem was when this data was compiled, the current scale of the problem is considerably less "bleak". That doesn't mean the problem has been solved, but it is certainly trending away from the problem and not toward it.
Do you know the difference between the words "is" and "was"?
Do you?
"Is" refers to the current state. "Was" refers to a previous state. In the context of "data from 1989 describing the relative difference in ages between pregnant teenage rape victims and their attackers", should we be using "is bleak" or "was bleak"?
Does this data describe anything at all about the current state? Or is this data limited solely to a previous state?
In answering, keep in mind that I provided "age of motherhood" data, indicating considerable changes have occurred since the 1989 data was tabulated.
I wasn't asking you? Are you mixing up your real account and your fake cheerleader account?
Ah, it must be someone posting on multiple accounts! There couldn't possibly be more than one person pointing out your seemingly limited reading comprehension in response to your posts in a public space.
To answer your original question, yes I do understand how time works and the difference in present and past tense, something you're clearly forgetting exists. Or maybe you're ignoring that to try and justify your previous comments to yourself because you can't accept you were wrong.
You posted from the wrong account again. ;-)
It is possible they multiple people disagree with you. Extremely likely in fact.
Especially given your proven inability to read.
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.