Abuse, Sex, Power, in the News

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

ajax18 wrote: Perhaps that's why it's so difficult to understand as is homosexuality to someone like myself. I haven't experienced either inclinations.


Well, have you ever been attracted to a 65 year old man? There are women that are. Right? Is that viewed as difficult to understand, for you? Why is it difficult for you to grasp that people, other than yourself, have sexual attractions that you may not have?
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

GoodK wrote:I think the problem is with our accommodation of religious practices in general.
We need to stop pretending like people have the right to worship in whatever way they seem fit.
I think people should have the right to believe whatever they wish, but once they start acting on such beliefs, the word "right" should be changed to "privilege" and whatever action they are doing should be evaluated by society.
Once they start acting insane, we should revoke the privilege to remain in society and send them off to get help.
My opinion: All the women involved in the FLDS fiasco should be court ordered to a mental facility. The men should as well. The children should be placed in foster care. Once they have come to terms with whatever mental defect or brainwashing that they have endured, then they can have another shot at believing whatever they wish in society. If they begin to congregate in obscure locations, and begin to scare groups of young girls into marrying old men, we should revoke their privilege again.

We jail millions of people for smoking grass every year, yet we don't jail people for telling their kids they won't make it to heaven unless they do ____________. Or that they will go to Outer Darkness if they _________. Or will reside in some pseudo-hell with Hitler and his cronies if they don't do___________.

The problem here, as I see it, is not with the FLDS or the LDS practice or former practice of polygamy. The problem is disgusting old men (in this specific situation) and the shelter one finds when they proclaim their belief in god(in general). Polygamy in the Old Testament has been mentioned, but this only goes to show that men have behaved disgustingly and gotten away with it for at least 2000 years. The first prophet and originator of the Islam was married to an adolescent girl (If I recall correctly). I don't think the problem is any specific religion, but rather, the tolerance for religion in society and our willingness to accept insane behavior as someone's "beliefs".


I agree, monitoring society in ways that exert influence on its vulnerable members is equal to the need of having fire protection for our material possesions--more important actually. I think the FLDS Texas debacle might just have ramifications that are leading in that direction.

Dr. Phil's involvement brings it to another level of inspection, discussion and remedy. This afternoon's show expressed exactly what you suggest. Home and family is not to harbor abuse of any kind. Home is not a place to indoctrinate &/condition minds in directions that jeoparadize their mental and emotional health and well being.

There is new ground being turned here. Certainly it will meet with resistance from those who imagine the magic of prayer & fasting to solve tragedy and fill voids in understanding with misinformation and traditional ignorance... Enough already, you've said it better. Warm regards, Roger
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

From a website on the history of marriage:

In Ancient Rome, people didn't marry because they were in love. Folks married to carry on the family bloodline and for economical or political reasons. Women were under the jurisdiction of their fathers, so young girls were often married off when they were between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Some young men married at the age of fourteen also.
During the Middle Ages, the practice of youthful marriages continued and women married as early as fourteen. Men generally waited until they were more established in life which was usually when they were in their twenties or early thirties. In 1371, due to the plague, the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. By 1427, the average male of all classes did not wed til he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age. Rich girls seemed to marry at a younger age than poor girls.

It is obvious from a historical perspective that marriages of teenagers (at least teenage girls) were quite common. However, that trend has changed in most countries of the world. Today, young love is neither encouraged or readily accepted by society.

Why are so many people against young married love? Because it is believed that more than 1/2 who marry in their teens will be divorced within 15 years. That is a pretty sobering statistic.

Additionally, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy, "Compared to girls who marry later, teenage brides have less schooling, less independence,and less experience of life and work." Teen brides are also at more risk for being abused and living at poverty levels.

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Gazelam wrote:From a website on the history of marriage:

In Ancient Rome, people didn't marry because they were in love. Folks married to carry on the family bloodline and for economical or political reasons. Women were under the jurisdiction of their fathers, so young girls were often married off when they were between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Some young men married at the age of fourteen also.
During the Middle Ages, the practice of youthful marriages continued and women married as early as fourteen. Men generally waited until they were more established in life which was usually when they were in their twenties or early thirties. In 1371, due to the plague, the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. By 1427, the average male of all classes did not wed til he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age. Rich girls seemed to marry at a younger age than poor girls.

It is obvious from a historical perspective that marriages of teenagers (at least teenage girls) were quite common. However, that trend has changed in most countries of the world. Today, young love is neither encouraged or readily accepted by society.

Why are so many people against young married love? Because it is believed that more than 1/2 who marry in their teens will be divorced within 15 years. That is a pretty sobering statistic.

Additionally, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy, "Compared to girls who marry later, teenage brides have less schooling, less independence,and less experience of life and work." Teen brides are also at more risk for being abused and living at poverty levels.



These stats most probably cover only the upper, decision making classes that really are few in number when compared to the masses who did the bidding of their masters. Today, although we masses enjoy more rewards of our labour, in the grand scheme of things we are only at the beginning of our time of influence to the betterment of the future for the masses from which we come.

The chances of which are improved as knowledge is accessed, and processed without prejudice and limitations placed upon the implementation of new sceintific findings applied to human developement. The new field of exploration and developement that will have greater affect upon the human stage than the Industrial Revolution... When it replaces religion as the moral influence under which we struggle from ignorance and intimidation to the freedom of truth that great humanist from Nazareth promised...

To your post GAZ, we both know LDSism encourages early marriage. Do Mission Presidents still advocate, "...be married in 6 months, with a short engagement period..." Do parents still consider BYU THE place to hunt spouse? For Cooke to mention 23 as LDS marrying age... Yeah, back from the Mission at 22ish, married at 23ish... About right, eh? What a spinner. Does he really think his audience is THAT stupid?? LOL!

What was the OP of this thread?? ;-) Warm regards, Roger
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

In Ancient Rome, people didn't marry because they were in love. Folks married to carry on the family bloodline and for economical or political reasons. Women were under the jurisdiction of their fathers, so young girls were often married off when they were between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Some young men married at the age of fourteen also.
During the Middle Ages, the practice of youthful marriages continued and women married as early as fourteen. Men generally waited until they were more established in life which was usually when they were in their twenties or early thirties. In 1371, due to the plague, the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. By 1427, the average male of all classes did not wed til he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age. Rich girls seemed to marry at a younger age than poor girls.


So, lets see, men owned girls and women for a few thousand years, raped them and treated them like **** and so it is all OK?

Are you kidding?

Until VERY recently marriage was a contract between two men with the woman as PROPERTY. Girls and women were treated as animals, traded, sold, bought. A man basically sold his daughter to another man who owned her. In most places throughout history, women had no rights, not even rights over her own body.

Yeah, young girls were purchased. What does this have to do with a civilized society who is just now beginning to treat women as human beings?

And yes, young boys did not have enough money to buy a girl or woman so had to wait until he could afford to do so.

I find it amazing that some folks try to justify cruelty to girls because men in the past were cruel to them. Really weird.

Thank goodness in many parts of the world we are beginning to move beyond this.

(sigh)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

truth dancer wrote:I find it amazing that some folks try to justify cruelty to girls because men in the past were cruel to them.


That's a very profound statement.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Coach T
_Emeritus
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:27 pm

Post by _Coach T »

Wow. I really want to respond to AS8 but I promised I wouldn't. Please, somebody, remind me that I promised I wouldn't.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

truth dancer wrote:In most places throughout history, women had no rights, not even rights over her own body...

Thank goodness in many parts of the world we are beginning to move beyond this.

(sigh)

~dancer~


I think we have religion to blame for this. It's scary that there are people living among us who are willing to justify treating women like property with scripture or history.

But it's not only the women, what about the genital mutilation of little boys? I don't remember being asked if I wanted my thing sawed at with knife...
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

truth dancer wrote:So, lets see, men owned girls and women for a few thousand years, raped them and treated them like **** and so it is all OK?

Are you kidding?

Until VERY recently marriage was a contract between two men with the woman as PROPERTY. Girls and women were treated as animals, traded, sold, bought. A man basically sold his daughter to another man who owned her. In most places throughout history, women had no rights, not even rights over her own body.

Yeah, young girls were purchased. What does this have to do with a civilized society who is just now beginning to treat women as human beings?

We've finally given women many rights, but it appears that girls under the age of 18 are still the property of their parents since they can get married in many states even while they are still considered to be minors and even though the states would consider it statutory rape for her to have sexual relationships with men several years older than her if it weren't for the marriage which her parents consent to. I'm still wondering why the heck we as a society tolerate that even though we know that statutory rape is a serious crime. I mean, why do we make an exception to statutory rape if the girl's parents give permission for marriage? Doesn't make any sense to me.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

We've finally given women many rights, but it appears that girls under the age of 18 are still the property of their parents since they can get married in many states even while they are still considered to be minors and even though the states would consider it statutory rape for her to have sexual relationships with men several years older than her if it weren't for the marriage which her parents consent to. I'm still wondering why the heck we as a society tolerate that even though we know that statutory rape is a serious crime. I mean, why do we make an exception to statutory rape if the girl's parents give permission for marriage? Doesn't make any sense to me.


I totally agree.

Children should not be allowed to marry. Period.

It just shows you how far we still have to go to rid society of this nonsense. :-(

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post Reply