Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/16/2008 7:44:40 PM EDT
As the Texas polygamist sect thread has brought up a discussion that turns up from time to time, I thought I would address the topic so it could be discussed in its own thread.

There are many on this site that seem to support the idea that females under the age of 18 are perfectly legitimate mates and partners for marriage and or sex, to a certain point (age) that isn't necessarily well defined, even if recognizing the fact that the current laws don't often support this belief.

There are many that submit that 18 is the standard for a reason, and females much younger than that are children and a desire to marry or especially have sex with one is repulsive and nothing more than a desire to engage in the molestation of a child.

My question is one of biology and morality, religious or otherwise.

If females between the ages of say 15-17 or so are too young to marry or to procreate, why are they physically equipped to do so at that point?  

If looked at from a religious perspective, why would God have designed a 16 year old to be fully capable of reproducing at that age, yet made it morally wrong to do so.  Why not make her develop that ability later in life?

For those that do not believe that a God has anything to do with it, what would the biological value of the reproductive functionality of a 16 year old be if not to be utilized as such?  What makes it wrong despite the biological indicators?

I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends.





Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:46:38 PM EDT
It is only a VERY RECENT notion that girls need to be 18. Up until the early 20th century girls as young as 12 or 13 were getting married and having kids. It is only a recent social taboo.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:51:07 PM EDT
biological evolution vs. social reality.

There was a time when it made sense. I was just in a cemetary today doing some stuff for a historical archaeology project, and I found it very interesting
1) that so many women died young. Lots of women in the 1800's dying before the age of 35.
2) that so many kids died at very young ages back then
3) that so many wives were significantly younger than the husbands they shared their funeral plots with. I saw several high social status grave sites that indicated the wife was 20+ years younger than the husband.

So yeah, back then, 14, 15, 16... game on. They don't have much time. Have kids, and lots of them so enough survive. Nowadays, no need. Everything has changed over the past 100 years, and the norms reflect that.

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 7:52:21 PM EDT
Don't any of you say when you were 17 you wouldn't pop a 15 year old if she was willing.


Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:01:01 PM EDT
In the 1800s(heck, maybe up the the early 1900s), gals got married at a young age to have children due to short lifespans compared to today. A man basically married a teenage girl so she was young and could handle the rigors of multiple childbirths.

Also, back in that era, daughters were also seen as bargining chips for business deals, espc among the more wealthy classes. There were most likely more deals that were agreed on with young daughters getting married off to older men or the sons of older men than we can count.

Times change and society/law dictate what is and is not acceptable.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:04:56 PM EDT
Because women used to have no other basic function in society than breed?

Now that there are more options for them, and society recognizes this, it has become unacceptable to still treat them as breeding stock.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:06:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pacs:
Don't any of you say when you were 17 you wouldn't pop a 15 year old if she was willing.




The youngest girl I ever nailed relative to my age was only one year.  I've nailed more older chicks than younger.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:07:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 8:07:42 PM EDT by Tim_the_enchanter]

Originally Posted By Myke:
Now that there are more options for them, and society recognizes this, it has become unacceptable to still treat them as breeding stock.


They call this progress?

Edit;

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:07:43 PM EDT
I believe that a young woman should have a chance to mature and see what the world is like before being burdened with a child. Many people look upon an under 18 year old getting pregnant as a child having a child. The modern world is complex and a person needs more preparation in order to be successful.

People who never seem able to get out of poverty are also the same ones that keep pumping out the children in most cases. Adults need to get an education and become productive members of society before having kids, if they want to stay out of poverty. In the olden days getting a young wife and producing lots of children was a matter of survival and ensuring support during retirement. Times have changed.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:07:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pacs:
Don't any of you say when you were 17 you wouldn't pop a 15 year old if she was willing.





This brings up a good point. I will be the first to admit. When I was 18 there were plenty of 16 year olds I would have loved to take to bed. I grew up and young girls are only looking older these days.

My sex drive hasn't gotten any tamer and 16 year olds haven't gotten less developed since i was that age.

16, 25, or 45, a nice body is a nice body.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:09:43 PM EDT
Your really talking about two different things IMHO.  There is a biological question, then a social question.  Remember that average human longevity was about 30 to 40 years until recent times.  Go to some of the old grave yards and check on life spans and infant mortality in the 1700s.  Human females became able to have childern about age 13 because they had lived about half their lives by that time before the advent of modern medical care.  The second question is about what is acceptable in a given socity.  Generally, here in America, we choose to believe that a woman needs a bit more time to mature both mentally and physically before committing to child birth and rearing.  I believe the medical considerations of the woman and the child is important too.  My great-great-grandfather had 13 childern by three wifes.  Two of the women died in child birth and most of the childern didn't make it to age 21.  I find the arguement that just because a female is capable of becoming pregnant she is mature enough physically and mentally for marriage to be a illogical statement.  It makes me mildly ill to think about a mature man having sex with a girl/woman right after her first period.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:14:16 PM EDT
I don't know all the answers to these questions, just that as an adult I took extra care with any girl who was a minor.  When I was 21 there were two 17 year old girls who actively sought to date me.  I started dating each before finding out their age, and then backed out of both relationships once I did find out their age.  Both were very attractive, but some lines just aren't meant to be crossed.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:14:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 8:25:58 PM EDT by kybosshog420]
Funny how fast morality can change. From caveman to the 1800's, it was ok, but just in the last 100 years, this has changed. Sucks for the future, they say if you  live till 2012, your life expedience will double, so I guess the legal age will double to 36
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:15:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cjk1:
As the Texas polygamist sect thread has brought up a discussion that turns up from time to time, I thought I would address the topic so it could be discussed in its own thread.

There are many on this site that seem to support the idea that females under the age of 18 are perfectly legitimate mates and partners for marriage and or sex, to a certain point (age) that isn't necessarily well defined, even if recognizing the fact that the current laws don't often support this belief.

There are many that submit that 18 is the standard for a reason, and females much younger than that are children and a desire to marry or especially have sex with one is repulsive and nothing more than a desire to engage in the molestation of a child.

My question is one of biology and morality, religious or otherwise.

If females between the ages of say 15-17 or so are too young to marry or to procreate, why are they physically equipped to do so at that point?  

If looked at from a religious perspective, why would God have designed a 16 year old to be fully capable of reproducing at that age, yet made it morally wrong to do so.  Why not make her develop that ability later in life?

For those that do not believe that a God has anything to do with it, what would the biological value of the reproductive functionality of a 16 year old be if not to be utilized as such?  What makes it wrong despite the biological indicators?
I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends.







Possibly, it is because hmans in the past did not live much beyond 30 years old, and reproduction had to begin earlier. Nowadays with people living 2 to 3 times as long, waiting until a person's mind catches up with their body is possible without the detrimental effects of waiting. If you were only going to live to be 30, you'd better start having kids a 15 so they will have a parent at least long enough to get them to breeding age.

Fortunately, since we all live a lot longer, we have the luxury of waiting until our brains have more fully matured before mating, without the consequence of dying before our offspring are mature enough to reproduce themselves.

As to whether or not it is morally acceptible... I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole.  

I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:16:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By seahorse:
I believe that a young woman should have a chance to mature and see what the world is like before being burdened with a child. Many people look upon an under 18 year old getting pregnant as a child having a child. The modern world is complex and a person needs more preparation in order to be successful.

People who never seem able to get out of poverty are also the same ones that keep pumping out the children in most cases. Adults need to get an education and become productive members of society before having kids, if they want to stay out of poverty. In the olden days getting a young wife and producing lots of children was a matter of survival and ensuring support during retirement. Times have changed.


Thanks for putting it better than I did.

BACK THEN, young girls having kids was a GOOD thing.  It was simply better for all involved.  Not much education was needed by the young girls.  Young mothers weren't a burden on society.  Neither were the children.  EDUCATION/MONEY were not a big factor.

NOW is a completely different story.  Young mothers are less likely to recieve the education needed to raise the children.  EDUCATION IS NECCESSARY.  MONEY is neccessary.  Therefore, young mother are MUCH more likely to create a burden on society, be it themselves or their children.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:17:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fbuckshot:
Your really talking about two different things IMHO.  There is a biological question, then a social question.  Remember that average human longevity was about 30 to 40 years until recent times.  Go to some of the old grave yards and check on life spans and infant mortality in the 1700s.  Human females became able to have childern about age 13 because they had lived about half their lives by that time before the advent of modern medical care.  The second question is about what is acceptable in a given socity.  Generally, here in America, we choose to believe that a woman needs a bit more time to mature both mentally and physically before committing to child birth and rearing.  I believe the medical considerations of the woman and the child is important too.  My great-great-grandfather had 13 childern by three wifes.  Two of the women died in child birth and most of the childern didn't make it to age 21.  I find the arguement that just because a female is capable of becoming pregnant she is mature enough physically and mentally for marriage to be a illogical statement.  It makes me mildly ill to think about a mature man having sex with a girl/woman right after her first period.


"My question is one of biology and morality, religious or otherwise"

Indeed, so which one is wrong, the biology or the social norm/morality?

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:17:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


The same reason that 70% is a D and 69% is an F. You have to set a standard somewhere.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:18:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By seahorse:
I believe that a young woman should have a chance to mature and see what the world is like before being burdened with a child. Many people look upon an under 18 year old getting pregnant as a child having a child. The modern world is complex and a person needs more preparation in order to be successful.

People who never seem able to get out of poverty are also the same ones that keep pumping out the children in most cases. Adults need to get an education and become productive members of society before having kids, if they want to stay out of poverty. In the olden days getting a young wife and producing lots of children was a matter of survival and ensuring support during retirement. Times have changed.


QFT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:21:50 PM EDT
Mary...the mother of Jesus was between the ages of 13 and 15 when she became pregnant.
Joseph...her betrothed was in his 30's.

Cultural norms change...Our current culture forbids such unions.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:22:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


The same reason that 70% is a D and 69% is an F. You have to set a standard somewhere.


exactly
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:35:29 PM EDT
Our current ideas of Morality do not take into account the biological realities and anthropological history of the human race.

"Morality" is a constantly changing concept.   Just yesterday, by historical standards, Slavery was considered morally acceptable, while homosexuals were considered evil.

Marriage to a 14 year old female was considered normal and proper, but extra marital sex was taboo.

It is probably better to just change with the times, then to dwell on why the morality changes.

You don't need to look for a rational explanation.  It is all one hundred percent subjective.

Remember back when a bayonet lug was "evil"?     Why?  "Because it's written, that's why!"
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:35:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


The same reason that 70% is a D and 69% is an F. You have to set a standard somewhere.


But sometimes if you get a 67% or above and you tried really hard in the class the teacher will round up to a 70%.

Can we round my 16 year old girlfriends age up to 18 if I am really nice and try hard?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:38:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Waldo0506:

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


The same reason that 70% is a D and 69% is an F. You have to set a standard somewhere.


But sometimes if you get a 67% or above and you tried really hard in the class the teacher will round up to a 70%.

Can we round my 16 year old girlfriends age up to 18 if I am really nice and try hard?


Hard question, you can try with your children, but in the end they will be what they want to be.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:43:13 PM EDT
Even 50 years ago we didn't understand that the wiring of an adolescent girl was still forming at 15 years....knowing more than our primative forebears that having sex with young girls might not be the best thing for THEM, is a good thing for us to move to, and away from the unhealthy and antiquated social practices of the past.

I have a hard time with people who argue otherwise, because there's just no motivation for doing so unless you want to have sex with young girls...why else argue it? It's not like there are a shortage of adult women to fuck.

Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:46:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
Our current ideas of Morality do not take into account the biological realities and anthropological history of the human race.

"Morality" is a constantly changing concept.   Just yesterday, by historical standards, Slavery was considered morally acceptable, while homosexuals were considered evil.

Marriage to a 14 year old female was considered normal and proper, but extra marital sex was taboo.

It is probably better to just change with the times, then to dwell on why the morality changes.

You don't need to look for a rational explanation.  It is all one hundred percent subjective.

Remember back when a bayonet lug was "evil"?     Why?  "Because it's written, that's why!"


It would be hard to argue that humans had a physical transformation that indicated that they were purpose designed for slavery.

"I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends"  

I guess the answer to my question would largely be no so far.

The points about prolonged lifespans are interesting, but I wonder if the average person lives to be 120 decades from now if the magical age would need to be bumped up to 23 or 24?  If that happens, would the idea of marriage or sex with a 19 year old become disgusting?   Would such a notion have any more to it than just being the current cultural trend?

On the bayo lug bit, many would apply these same views of "times change, get with the program" in their positions that the 2nd Amendment instead of somehow reinforcing a natural "right" to defense instead merely reinforces an outdated view.



Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:48:11 PM EDT
Yikes... at this point, girls under 25 are starting to get annoying...  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:48:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
Even 50 years ago we didn't understand that the wiring of an adolescent girl was still forming at 15 years....knowing more than our primative forebears that having sex with young girls might not be the best thing for THEM, is a good thing for us to move to, and away from the unhealthy and antiquated social practices of the past.

I have a hard time with people who argue otherwise, because there's just no motivation for doing so unless you want to have sex with young girls...why else argue it? It's not like there are a shortage of adult women to fuck.



But at 15 or 16 you wanted to have sex, as much as you could.            
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:49:45 PM EDT
Its a way to protect women outside of marriage.  Most states have two ages of consent, one for a woman being married with family consent, and another for sex generally.  Some of the first age of consent laws come from Victorian England, when it was revealed that the current vogue for prostitution was child virgins.  I believe they raised the age to 14.  The point is that if a woman was going to engage in immoral sex, she was given a chance to reach an age where she could make moral decisions.  As our society ages, the age where someone is considered an "adult" keeps rising, and so does the age of consent.  

For marriage with consent, the age was generally when she was sexually mature because married sex was moral.  In the rougher era of our past, if a man could economically take care of a woman age difference didn't matter.  Young was often preferrable both because a woman needed to be able to bear lots of children, as well as to get a virgin in a day and age where DNA testing wasn't available.  Marrying a chaste woman was seen as the best way to ensure your children were yours.  

Today the problem is that we don't necessarily see sex outside marriage as immoral, but we understand that young girls are vulnerable to predators, and need to become mature enough to make an informed decision about their life.

The big grey area is when two underage people hook up, or someone slightly over the line and an underage girl.  You can draw the line however you like, but there really is no clear line as to whether 17 and 15 is o.k., but 13 and 16 is not.  You really just have to have good prosecutors making good judgment calls.  But as with human nature some DAs will be good and some will be asshats.  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:50:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BURN:

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


The same reason that 70% is a D and 69% is an F. You have to set a standard somewhere.


exactly


70-79 = C

60-69 = D

More importantly why do we need the government to set an arbitrary line?  Raise your kids well and stay out of other peoples business.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:52:39 PM EDT
Well, good to know that the pedo's don't just hang out on the chan sites.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:54:37 PM EDT
Tell this to all the 13 to 17 year girls that are partying now.                  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:56:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cjk1:

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
Our current ideas of Morality do not take into account the biological realities and anthropological history of the human race.

Remember back when a bayonet lug was "evil"?     Why?  "Because it's written, that's why!"



It would be hard to argue that humans had a physical transformation that indicated that they were purpose designed for slavery.


"I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends"  

I guess the answer to my question would largely be no so far.

The points about prolonged lifespans are interesting, but I wonder if the average person lives to be 120 decades from now if the magical age would need to be bumped up to 23 or 24?  If that happens, would the idea of marriage or sex with a 19 year old become disgusting?   Would such a notion have any more to it than just being the current cultural trend?

On the bayo lug bit, many would apply these same views of "times change, get with the program" in their positions that the 2nd Amendment instead of somehow reinforcing a natural "right" to defense instead merely reinforces an outdated view.



Slavery was practiced by every culture in history.  The industrial revolution gave humans the luxury to see it as immoral.

Similarily, medical advances gave us the luxury to pick a random age at which a woman "should" bear children.


Those that base their morality upon ideals older than two generations, run the risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the peers.  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:56:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 8:57:38 PM EDT by Pacs]

Originally Posted By AKSig:
Well, good to know that the pedo's don't just hang out on the chan sites.


Give me a break, these 14 to 17 year old girls are doing things to their guys, you wife wouldn't do to you.          
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:57:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cjk1:
As the Texas polygamist sect thread has brought up a discussion that turns up from time to time, I thought I would address the topic so it could be discussed in its own thread.

There are many on this site that seem to support the idea that females under the age of 18 are perfectly legitimate mates and partners for marriage and or sex, to a certain point (age) that isn't necessarily well defined, even if recognizing the fact that the current laws don't often support this belief.

There are many that submit that 18 is the standard for a reason, and females much younger than that are children and a desire to marry or especially have sex with one is repulsive and nothing more than a desire to engage in the molestation of a child.

My question is one of biology and morality, religious or otherwise.

If females between the ages of say 15-17 or so are too young to marry or to procreate, why are they physically equipped to do so at that point?  

If looked at from a religious perspective, why would God have designed a 16 year old to be fully capable of reproducing at that age, yet made it morally wrong to do so.  Why not make her develop that ability later in life?

For those that do not believe that a God has anything to do with it, what would the biological value of the reproductive functionality of a 16 year old be if not to be utilized as such?  What makes it wrong despite the biological indicators?

I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends.







The only religious connection to this is the various Biblical commands to obey the law under which you live...

What it boils down to is that in a modern society where it takes 18 years to give someone even the slightest START on learning what they need to know to make it...

Allowing teenagers to legally marry and/or consent to sex has been deemed not in the best interest of both the child and society as a whole...

In the days where 12-14 was an 'OK' age to marry, education past grade school was a luxury... Now it is mandatory to avoid a life of for-sure poverty...

And as we all know, in our current society, poverty = welfare case = we pay for it...

Hence the current law...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 8:59:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pacs:

Originally Posted By AKSig:
Well, good to know that the pedo's don't just hang out on the chan sites.


Give me a break, these 14 to 17 year old girls are doing things to their guys, you wife wouldn't do to you.          


Worked out well in the 60's.

Let's repeat it!!
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:03:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Pacs:

Originally Posted By AKSig:
Well, good to know that the pedo's don't just hang out on the chan sites.


Give me a break, these 14 to 17 year old girls are doing things to their duds, you wife wouldn't do to you.          


Um.. I'm not married. I'm single for life and 27 years old and bag my fair share of women in the 18+ age bracket. It's rather easy in Vegas and there really isn't anything I haven't done with a broad. But the fact is a 14 year old girl is in no way mature enough to be married and having kids. IMHO. Did I bang 14-17 year olds in my time? Sure, when I was 13-17.  I did have one ex who was 4 months younger then me when I turned 18. I still banged her too. But to have a 14 year old married off to a 50 year old man is not right.

My .02
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:03:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


Everything that is allowed or not allowed has to have a concrete standard...

18 is considered the minimum age where a person knows enough to be responsible for themself & make such decisions...

It also happens to be the age where you can vote, join the service without parental consent, etc...

The reason for stat-rape laws isn't to reduce the AGE SPREAD, it's to keep minors who by virtue of age are assumed to not have sufficient knowledge to understand the impact of their actions from being preyed upon by grown adults...

Weather it's the girl who's pregnant at 14 by a 40yo pedo, or the 13yo kid who will owe child support once he hits 18... We don't want those things happening, so laws are made to prevent them...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:07:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillofRights:

Originally Posted By cjk1:

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
Our current ideas of Morality do not take into account the biological realities and anthropological history of the human race.

Remember back when a bayonet lug was "evil"?     Why?  "Because it's written, that's why!"



It would be hard to argue that humans had a physical transformation that indicated that they were purpose designed for slavery.


"I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends"  

I guess the answer to my question would largely be no so far.

The points about prolonged lifespans are interesting, but I wonder if the average person lives to be 120 decades from now if the magical age would need to be bumped up to 23 or 24?  If that happens, would the idea of marriage or sex with a 19 year old become disgusting?   Would such a notion have any more to it than just being the current cultural trend?

On the bayo lug bit, many would apply these same views of "times change, get with the program" in their positions that the 2nd Amendment instead of somehow reinforcing a natural "right" to defense instead merely reinforces an outdated view.



Slavery was practiced by every culture in history.  The industrial revolution gave humans the luxury to see it as immoral.

Similarily, medical advances gave us the luxury to pick a random age at which a woman "should" bear children.


Those that base their morality upon ideals older than two generations, run the risk of becoming criminals in the eyes of the peers.  


When college education becomes as 'mandatory' as high school for economic survival (if it ever does) then the age of consent will move to 22...

Notice that the age of consent and the graduation from the 'mandatory-minimum' level of education... Are generally the same...
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:07:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
I will add a qustion, though. Why does society say it's legal for a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old woman?


Everything that is allowed or not allowed has to have a concrete standard...

18 is considered the minimum age where a person knows enough to be responsible for themself & make such decisions...

It also happens to be the age where you can vote, join the service without parental consent, etc...

The reason for stat-rape laws isn't to reduce the AGE SPREAD, it's to keep minors who by virtue of age are assumed to not have sufficient knowledge to understand the impact of their actions from being preyed upon by grown adults...

Weather it's the girl who's pregnant at 14 by a 40yo pedo, or the 13yo kid who will owe child support once he hits 18... We don't want those things happening, so laws are made to prevent them...


Holy fuck.

I actually agree with one of Dave_A's posts.

I.......I........I.......I'm scared. I need a drink.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:10:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
biological evolution vs. social reality.

There was a time when it made sense. I was just in a cemetary today doing some stuff for a historical archaeology project, and I found it very interesting
1) that so many women died young. Lots of women in the 1800's dying before the age of 35.
2) that so many kids died at very young ages back then
3) that so many wives were significantly younger than the husbands they shared their funeral plots with. I saw several high social status grave sites that indicated the wife was 20+ years younger than the husband.

So yeah, back then, 14, 15, 16... game on. They don't have much time. Have kids, and lots of them so enough survive. Nowadays, no need. Everything has changed over the past 100 years, and the norms reflect that.



By that thinking, as technology, etc improves we should raise the limit even higher.. like.. oh... 25.. for both sexs...to be fair.  
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:15:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
biological evolution vs. social reality.

There was a time when it made sense. I was just in a cemetary today doing some stuff for a historical archaeology project, and I found it very interesting
1) that so many women died young. Lots of women in the 1800's dying before the age of 35.
2) that so many kids died at very young ages back then
3) that so many wives were significantly younger than the husbands they shared their funeral plots with. I saw several high social status grave sites that indicated the wife was 20+ years younger than the husband.

So yeah, back then, 14, 15, 16... game on. They don't have much time. Have kids, and lots of them so enough survive. Nowadays, no need. Everything has changed over the past 100 years, and the norms reflect that.



By that thinking, as technology, etc improves we should raise the limit even higher.. like.. oh... 25.. for both sexs...to be fair.  


Stat rape laws are sex-neutral...

13yo boy with 25yo woman is just as illegal as 13yo girl with 25yo man right now...

Why would it be different when we advance to the point where 4 more years of mandatory education exist, and the age of (war/voting/sex/etc) is 22?
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:23:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 9:24:49 PM EDT by NoStockBikes]

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By NoStockBikes:
biological evolution vs. social reality.

There was a time when it made sense. I was just in a cemetary today doing some stuff for a historical archaeology project, and I found it very interesting
1) that so many women died young. Lots of women in the 1800's dying before the age of 35.
2) that so many kids died at very young ages back then
3) that so many wives were significantly younger than the husbands they shared their funeral plots with. I saw several high social status grave sites that indicated the wife was 20+ years younger than the husband.

So yeah, back then, 14, 15, 16... game on. They don't have much time. Have kids, and lots of them so enough survive. Nowadays, no need. Everything has changed over the past 100 years, and the norms reflect that.



By that thinking, as technology, etc improves we should raise the limit even higher.. like.. oh... 25.. for both sexs...to be fair.  


Stand back and watch... What's the average age of "kids" moving out of their parents house and on their own nowadays? Drinking age used to be 18, drivers license used to be 14, then 16, now places are talking 18... Delayed onset adulthood.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:30:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By cjk1:
As the Texas polygamist sect thread has brought up a discussion that turns up from time to time, I thought I would address the topic so it could be discussed in its own thread.

There are many on this site that seem to support the idea that females under the age of 18 are perfectly legitimate mates and partners for marriage and or sex, to a certain point (age) that isn't necessarily well defined, even if recognizing the fact that the current laws don't often support this belief.

There are many that submit that 18 is the standard for a reason, and females much younger than that are children and a desire to marry or especially have sex with one is repulsive and nothing more than a desire to engage in the molestation of a child.

My question is one of biology and morality, religious or otherwise.

If females between the ages of say 15-17 or so are too young to marry or to procreate, why are they physically equipped to do so at that point?  

If looked at from a religious perspective, why would God have designed a 16 year old to be fully capable of reproducing at that age, yet made it morally wrong to do so.  Why not make her develop that ability later in life?

For those that do not believe that a God has anything to do with it, what would the biological value of the reproductive functionality of a 16 year old be if not to be utilized as such?  What makes it wrong despite the biological indicators?

I just want to see if these positions can be presented outside of perspectives based solely on legal code or current cultural trends.







The only religious connection to this is the various Biblical commands to obey the law under which you live...

What it boils down to is that in a modern society where it takes 18 years to give someone even the slightest START on learning what they need to know to make it...

Allowing teenagers to legally marry and/or consent to sex has been deemed not in the best interest of both the child and society as a whole...

In the days where 12-14 was an 'OK' age to marry, education past grade school was a luxury... Now it is mandatory to avoid a life of for-sure poverty...

And as we all know, in our current society, poverty = welfare case = we pay for it...

Hence the current law...



I have a hard time agreeing with this rationale from a society that has such a high rate of failed marriages and dysfunctional families, yet claims to somehow now know better to the point that it deems earlier practices in regard to marriage or sex (at very least based on something natural like biological impulses) outdated.  

I submit that on certain subjects we used to collectively know more than we do now, despite all of our advances.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:33:31 PM EDT
18 IS FUN 26 AND UP TO DATE  IAM 37
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:36:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:38:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 9:43:33 PM EDT by NoStockBikes]
Here's an interesting link to see different societal views: Nice compact list of "marriageable age" by geographic location

ETA: Summary = 18 & 16 w/ consent are pretty common, probably the median.  Interestingly, a cited statistic says that half of marriages in Afghanistan involve girls under 14?!?

ETAA: Holy fucking shit... Check out Yemen. In 1999, they abolished the previous minimum of 15 and went to age 9.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:47:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2008 9:50:18 PM EDT by OFFascist]
The age of consent in Texas is 17.

IMO 15 or 16 would be more natural.
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 9:53:35 PM EDT
I was shocked in 1987 when the high school kids told me they started doing it at 13 and that hood rat girls started at 10.

Freshman girls have tongue studs for a reason.  

I'm not defending this but just pointing out how it is.

Around here a 16 year old girl is likely to have between 3 and 6 years sex experience.  
Link Posted: 4/17/2008 4:15:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By shotar:
I don't think it's so much about the morality of age rather the disparity of age.  For instance, I'd be pissed if I caught my 15 year old 10 up with a 16 year old on top of her ten down.  I'd be violent if the guy was 20.  Worse if he was 30 and it progresses from there.  Now, once she has reached the age of majority, I don't get a say in the matter.  She can decide because hopefully by that age she has gained enough decision making experience to make better choices.

For those who do not think that there is a vast difference in decision making between 15 and 18 and 21 and 26, then I would think you are either under one of these ages, or never grew up.


Historically, disparity of age was viewed to be a benefit.  

Why have Juliet marry a Romeo of similar age, when she could rather marry somebody a decade or more older who at that point would potentially be done with his education via university or trade, more financially stable, wiser, and a more solidified opinion on things like politics, etc.  

He was set, so a family knew that their daughter wouldn't have to worry for her future like she might if she married the other 17 year old boy down the street.
Link Posted: 4/17/2008 4:23:42 AM EDT
Biology decides when females' bodies are "ready".

It's up to society to see to it that their minds are ready before that.
Link Posted: 4/17/2008 4:26:23 AM EDT
People live much longer now so it's another biology meets "social norms" as far as I'm concerned.
Also there is a much greater difference in true adults and younger teenagers now. Although the term perpetual adolescence comes to mind.
I can't discuss My Little Pony, even for booty.
What a world...I'll stick to Georgia and Mexico, thank you.







Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top