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

Quoted for truth. I hear so many amazing things and think about it.. "Holy shit", and I'm only 22. That says a lot there.


Eta page 3

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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.

Except that it wasn't based on 'biological impulses'.... Remember: The prevailing morality of the time was that biological impulses were to be 'controlled' until after marriage (Weather this happened or not is another story, but it not happening was most certainly was not the basis for legal policy)...

It was based on minimum-needed education having been completed, and the person being an 'adult' and fully functional member of society...

Which a 14yo was back then, but most certainly is NOT today...

P.S. It is the rise of the 'I WANT' society & the death of traditional morality (see teenage girls 'doing things' that would have been considered quite disreputable years ago, as mentioned above) that is responsible for the rate of failure... Not the later age...

From a biological standpoint it is possible for extremely young girls to become pregnant. A few years ago there was a case in South America somewhere where a 5 year old girl was raped and became pregnant.
Does this mean it's okay to bang 5 year olds? The line has to be drawn somewhere and in most civilized countries it's at 16-18. This has been accepted as the norm since mental maturity is as important as biological maturity.
Jus because it was acceptable to marry 12-13 year olds in the 19th century that doesn't mean that it should be okay today. Women and girls were treated as property in those days and no one cared if a 12 year old married a 40 year old.
They also thought that it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves. Does this mean that we should be fine with that today as well?

Quoted: The average life span is no longer 30 to 35 years old. It use to be necessary for teen females to have babies to keep the family going. It's not that way anymore. It's amazing to me people will try to find any reason to justify kiddie diddlers.

Could we stay on topic and not try to distract the thread by comparing historical practices of women marrying and procreating at younger ages to child molesters?  

These practices were perfectly common in the 1940s, where the average lifespan was into the 60s at that point, not 30.

You made nearly the same comment in the Polygamist sect thread; I started this thread hoping that the subject could be discussed rationally.  You comments do little to add to the conversation, unless your purpose is to stir the pot.

Quoted: 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.

I think you are close but have the cart and horse reversed.  There is a common law principle, still in effect now, that a girl who becomes pregnant is by definition a woman (i.e. emancipated).

18 is an arbitrary line in the sand...

You can try as hard as you want to stop teens from having sex, but it just won't work... they're not wired that way (from caveman days to the present).  Teens screw around.  That was true in your grandmother's day (as much as we'd like to romanticize the past and say it wasn't so), and it's true today. The best you can do is teach them the best you can to try and make good decisions and hope for the best.  The stupid ones (and sometimes the just plain unlucky ones) will be saddled with responsibilities that they probably won't be able to handle (remarkably, some of them will handle it just fine, albeit with some bumps along the way that others won't have to deal with).  I wouldn't want any young person to have to deal with that (especially my kids), but for a certain percentage of them it's inevitable.  It's not "bad kids" either, it's pretty much all of them.

Abstinence has always been a battle doomed to fail.  It's just contrary to human nature (like vegetarianism or pacifism).  Encouraging your daughters to "save themselves until marriage" only made sense when you married your daughter off at 12 or 13.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The average life span is no longer 30 to 35 years old. It use to be necessary for teen females to have babies to keep the family going. It's not that way anymore. It's amazing to me people will try to find any reason to justify kiddie diddlers. Could we stay on topic and not try to distract the thread by comparing historical practices of women marrying and procreating at younger ages to child molesters?   These practices were perfectly common in the 1940s, where the average lifespan was into the 60s at that point, not 30. You made nearly the same comment in the Polygamist sect thread; I started this thread hoping that the subject could be discussed rationally.  You comments do little to add to the conversation, unless your purpose is to stir the pot. Trying to in any way, shape, form or fashion to rationalize adult males having sex with minors is morally wrong. Marriage between adults and children should not be allowed. Sex between adults and children should not be allowed. Just because it bleeds is not an excuse to breed. Some females as young as 9 yrs old can have periods. It does not mean they are ready for marriage or sexual activity. Just because a 14 yr old has D size breasts does not mean she is ready for marriage or sexual activity.

You're kind of knocking down a straw man here.

Anyway, a 9 year old menstruating as you suggested is clearly the biological exception, not the rule.

A question that I have is if a man is a polygamist and marries 4 different women then he can be arrested and charged with crimes. But a man who is married to one woman who is cheating on his wife has 3 girlfriends he is banging on the side will never be charged with anything. Don't get me wrong I think both cheating on ones wife and polygamy are wrong but why the difference. In both cases one man is keeping 4 different women. I don't understand. I understand in some states infidelity is illegal but no one is ever charged. But polygamists are always charged. Granted polygamists are usually a strange breed of people and all kinds of people commit infidelity everyday. Thus there is a difference between the types of people that do each.

As I said above I'm not defending polygamists but what is the difference? I think both are wrong but why the difference legally?

also back then sex was primarily for reproduction, sure it felt good but sex was to propogate the species more.

now sex has become recreational as well as reproductive. with modern contraceptives we can engage in sex almost anytime we want without the possibility of creating offspring.

thus, we can and should be more selective with our partners and include at least a minimum age to keep it mentaly healthy for the woman.

plus, I would imagine a 13 year old would not be very good in bed recreationaly, but at 18 she would probably have better developed sexual urges and satisfy the man better in bed.

my .02

Quoted: also back then sex was primarily for reproduction, sure it felt good but sex was to propogate the species more. now sex has become recreational as well as reproductive. with modern contraceptives we can engage in sex almost anytime we want without the possibility of creating offspring. thus, we can and should be more selective with our partners and include at least a minimum age to keep it mentaly healthy for the woman. plus, I would imagine a 13 year old would not be very good in bed recreationaly, but at 18 she would probably have better developed sexual urges and satisfy the man better in bed. my .02

I don't see how your first two points support the third.  

Additionally, save a shift in social norms, I really don't think the purpose of sex has changed any.  Perhaps we are just distracted from its purpose.

Quoted: A question that I have is if a man is a polygamist and marries 4 different women then he can be arrested and charged with crimes. But a man who is married to one woman who is cheating on his wife has 3 girlfriends he is banging on the side will never be charged with anything. Don't get me wrong I think both cheating on ones wife and polygamy are wrong but why the difference. In both cases one man is keeping 4 different women. I don't understand. I understand in some states infidelity is illegal but no one is ever charged. But polygamists are always charged. Granted polygamists are usually a strange breed of people and all kinds of people commit infidelity everyday. Thus there is a difference between the types of people that do each. As I said above I'm not defending polygamists but what is the difference? I think both are wrong but why the difference legally?

because the cheating man can't claim the girlfriends as tax deductions.

follow the money.

money is always the root of many, many laws.

Quoted: Quoted: A question that I have is if a man is a polygamist and marries 4 different women then he can be arrested and charged with crimes. But a man who is married to one woman who is cheating on his wife has 3 girlfriends he is banging on the side will never be charged with anything. Don't get me wrong I think both cheating on ones wife and polygamy are wrong but why the difference. In both cases one man is keeping 4 different women. I don't understand. I understand in some states infidelity is illegal but no one is ever charged. But polygamists are always charged. Granted polygamists are usually a strange breed of people and all kinds of people commit infidelity everyday. Thus there is a difference between the types of people that do each. As I said above I'm not defending polygamists but what is the difference? I think both are wrong but why the difference legally? because the cheating man can't claim the girlfriends as tax deductions. follow the money. money is always the root of many, many laws.

I understand that but polygamists are usually charged for polygamy not for tax fraud. Correct? I don't know but it seems to me the poygamists are usually singled out because our States and Federal Govt. have a way of going after the kooks in this country. Especially those that defend their kookieness by claiming it is part of their religion. While an averge joe out destroying his family while banging 5 different women is given a pass and alot of people look at him like he is some kinda stud.

Quoted: (emphasis added) Quoted: Quoted: The average life span is no longer 30 to 35 years old. It use to be necessary for teen females to have babies to keep the family going. It's not that way anymore. It's amazing to me people will try to find any reason to justify kiddie diddlers. Could we stay on topic and not try to distract the thread by comparing historical practices of women marrying and procreating at younger ages to child molesters?   These practices were perfectly common in the 1940s, where the average lifespan was into the 60s at that point, not 30. You made nearly the same comment in the Polygamist sect thread; I started this thread hoping that the subject could be discussed rationally.  You comments do little to add to the conversation, unless your purpose is to stir the pot. Trying to in any way, shape, form or fashion to rationalize adult males having sex with minors is morally wrong. Marriage between adults and children should not be allowed. Sex between adults and children should not be allowed.

I think the discussion is concerning how society decides who is an adult, and who is a minor, and whether or not that decision has so far been made correctly.

Quoted: 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 youngest person recorded as having a child was 5 or 6 I believe.  She carried full term and gave birth.  Some girls start their periods at 8 which means they can get pregnant.  Where do you draw the line?  Its not always about is someone physically able, but emotionally able.  Also the younger the person, a lot of times they have more complications and also lose the baby through miscarriage.  

Quoted: Yikes... at this point, girls under 25 are starting to get annoying...

No shit - I get freaked out enough by the arfcommers in their 30s bragging about their 19, 20 year old wives.

I couldn't fathom MARRYING a teenager.

Quoted: Yikes... at this point, girls under 25 are starting to get annoying...

LOL -- no doubt.  After listening to the early-20's girls in the office talk in their neo-valley girl accent, with the word "like" constantly misused, and their inflection rising at the end of every sentence, I just want to gouge my ear drums out.  Still nice to look at, though.