Another Waco?

[duchess of malfi]

Be that as it may, it was not only acceptable but expected for girls to marry off as soon as they reached child-bearing age in the not-too-distant past. Our cultural aversion to "underage" sex is a construct of our society, and a direct result of not needing additional farmhands or other laborers.

Edit-I want to make it clear that I'm in no way condoning adults having sex with minors, nor am I minimizing any pain caused by people that would do such a thing. I'm simply pointing out that this "wrongness" is relatively recent.

Actually Cail, in some circumstances a relationship like this can work. My paternal grandmother was a sixteen year old runaway when she married my middle aged widower paternal grandfather. Some of the kids from his first marriage were older than she was.

The tragedy of my grandmother's life was not that she married my grandfather. It was not that she had ten kids in ten years following the marriage. It wasn't even that one of those kids died, something which haunted the whole family for the rest of their lives.

The tragedy was that my grandfather died, and she had to go back to her abusive birth family with her younger step children and biological children, and then they all got the shit knocked out of them on a regular basis.

Given what she came from (and went back to), marrying a guy a lot older than she was was the better choice.

And to give you an idea of the age difference, I am 43. My grandfather was a veteran of the Spanish American War.

But some key points here:
* my grandmother chose this marriage
* she was his only living wife, and got his attention and support without having to share it with a bunch of other wives
* as long as he was alive he did his best to financially support her and the kids
* 16, while still very young, is still more physically/emotionally ready for sex and marriage and parenthood than 12 or 13
* she was not closely biologically related to my grandfather

These guys from the Jeffs (and similar) cults
* do not give the girls a choice
* in some cases, they are very close relatives (even, in a couple of cases, the girls' fathers)
* do not limit themselves to even 2-3 wives, as some cultures and religions permit - they often get far more than that
* often do not support the wives or their children financially (the state of Utah is going after some of these guys with fraud charges as well as rape charges, as the secondary wives and their kids all go on welfare, with "unknown" for the father on the birth certificates for the kids)

Google the news on this stuff. There have been many court cases in Utah and Arizona (and I believe Nevada as well) in the past few years.

[Avatar]

Good posts folks, really good posts.

I certainly agree that, even when it was socially aceptable, it still probably wasn't much fun for the women. (There's that difference between morality and legality again.)

Edit: Side note, Cail, I think you've done more to shape my political and ethical views through opposition than anyone I've ever interacted with Disagreeing with you 90 percent of the time, and coming around to see your side of things 5% of the time, has altered my perception of reality.

Haha, that's probably the nicest thing anybody has said to Cail in the 'Tank.

Oh, and EL, romantic love is not an aberration among humans, it's merely that it was a very distant second consideration, if that. Ideally, all relationships, and especially child-producing ones, should be from the basis of romantic love.

--A

[Cail]

Heh, yeah Jem.....I'm totally not sure how to take that...

Duchy-What you're illustrating is the difference between consentual relations and non-consentual. I would agree that people like Jeffs are exploiting children, but what they're doing isn't much different from the typical rapist/control-freak husband/boyfriend. Our society has played a game with the ability of a minor to give consent (a 14 year-old can be tried for murder but can't consent to sex), so therefore any sexual contact with anyone below a certain age is, by the strictest definition, rape. In the case of states that allow minors to marry with parental consent...That's really no different than legalized prostitution.

[emotional leper]

Good posts folks, really good posts.

I certainly agree that, even when it was socially aceptable, it still probably wasn't much fun for the women. (There's that difference between morality and legality again.)

Edit: Side note, Cail, I think you've done more to shape my political and ethical views through opposition than anyone I've ever interacted with Disagreeing with you 90 percent of the time, and coming around to see your side of things 5% of the time, has altered my perception of reality.

Haha, that's probably the nicest thing anybody has said to Cail in the 'Tank.

Oh, and EL, romantic love is not an aberration among humans, it's merely that it was a very distant second consideration, if that. Ideally, all relationships, and especially child-producing ones, should be from the basis of romantic love.

--A

I beg to differ. Romantic love was practically unheard of in practice until it was popularised in Christian Europe during the Mid to Late Medieval Period (Courtly Love.) The primary reason for marriage was the Theory of Expanding Social Relationships, which states that we practice marriage outside of the nuclear family instead of inside of it because those who marry outside of the nuclear family build alliances through marriage which can be called upon in times of war, famine, or other crises. Those who have such alliances to call upon have a greater survival chance than those who do not. Love had nothing to do with it. There are many societies, such as the Nimba of Nepal, whose ways of life are threatened by the concept of Romantic Marriage. The Nimba have a system of Fraternal Polyandry, developed because there is so little land that is capable of sustaining crops that if the land was split among the sons, none of them would be able to support their families. The concept of romantic love threatens this by creating a strong pressure towards monogamy. Before the introduction of romantic love, divorce was practically unheard of. Now divorce is becoming increasingly common.

[duchess of malfi]

I have actually no issues whatsoever with polyamory (whether polygamy or ployandry) provided that the people within the marriage are consenting to the relationship.

The problem with the Jeff cult and similar offshoots of fundamentalist Mormonism is that the girls are given no choice in the matter at all. In fact, if you read the book I cited earlier, their parents are given no choice. If a girl is chosen to marry someone her parents do not want her to marry, if they have the courage to speak up about it, they are severely retaliated against.

Among other things, in places like Colorado City, the church owns all of the houses where cult members live. The cult member might have built the house with his own hands and paid for the materials of its construction - but it is owned by the church. If he complains or shows independence, the church will evict him and his family from his own house. And fire him from his job - because the church owns most of the local businesses, too. And there have been reports/rumors of retaliatory violence, too.

Remember, these people are raised from birth to believe Jeffs (or other leaders) are pretty much God's voice on Earth. It takes a lot of courage to speak up against him - or even to ask for help. And then when you know you'll be facing severe retaliation if you open your mouth...

There is actually an underground railroad of sorts, smuggling girls who want help out of Colorado City and getting them to Phoenix. But it takes a huge amount of courage for the girls to even try to get the help.

[Rawedge Rim]

Arranged marraiges were the norm up until the last century or so, and in most eastern cultures it still is the norm. They rarely consider marraige for "love", instead they look at it as a formation or strenthening of political and financial ties.

In fact, if you read liturature from a century ago, it's rife with references to women who had the choice between "Love" and "Security", and chose the "Security."

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

With all due respect, what does the norm have to do with anything? Societies change over time. Unless we're willing to sign off on total stagnation, who care's what the norm is?

The basis for my objection has nothing to do with norms/laws/whatever, but on personal experience. Also, while the idea of romantic love as a concept might be new, I'm sure the chemical flood that goes off in response to the 'love' feeling isn't new. If it is, I want to know how to chemically engineer myself in that way so I can get that response from doing stuff I hate. Like dishes.

[Cail]

With all due respect, what does the norm have to do with anything? Societies change over time. Unless we're willing to sign off on total stagnation, who care's what the norm is?

The norm is generally what the law is based on. When an overwhelming majority reject a norm, the law is changed.

[Avatar]

True EL and RR, but that's not my point. I meant that if it was an abberration, you wouldn't have widespread cases of people being in love.

Surely the ideal is that we may be with the person we are currently in love with, (assuming they are reciprocally in love with us), until such point as we no longer love them, and may then find somebody else to love?

Even if the point of love, (as some aver), is to encourage us to have children in an "environment" in which they are fed and reared into more people, that still makes it natural.

Anyway, Agree with Duchess...as long as everybody involved is freely and knowledgably consenting, I could care less who and how many you're doing what, or married, to.

--A

[Cail]

[anal retentive]Actually, you couldn't care less.[/anal retentive]

[Avatar]

Haha, you're right. I care not at all, so couldn't care less.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

With all due respect, what does the norm have to do with anything? Societies change over time. Unless we're willing to sign off on total stagnation, who care's what the norm is?

The basis for my objection has nothing to do with norms/laws/whatever, but on personal experience. Also, while the idea of romantic love as a concept might be new, I'm sure the chemical flood that goes off in response to the 'love' feeling isn't new. If it is, I want to know how to chemically engineer myself in that way so I can get that response from doing stuff I hate. Like dishes.

Personal experience is exactly what it is, personal, and may or may not be the experience of others. Celine Dion seems to be very happy with her hubby, and he's not exactly a spring chicken. Of course, she entered into that marraige of her own free will.

Be that as it may, it is now normal to marry for love (or at least lust) in the West, but in another century, who knows? Maybe arranged marriage will become the norm again, and most people will look at romantic marriages to be strange and somewhat childish thing, or maybe marriage will not exist at all as we see it today.

[duchess of malfi]

Guys, it is not arranged marriages as such that I (and I suspect Jem) have the issue with. I have known people from other cultures who had arranged marriages, though they live in America now, and they're fine with them. But they also were given the choice by their parents that if they could not stand their potential partner, that they did not have to go through with it.

The objection is also not to plural marriages, as long as the people are adults and willing.

The objection is that these particular marriages are involving children, who have not consented. And that these children are being raped and forced to bear their own children at very young ages, such as 12 and early teens.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Yeah, uh, ditto.

[Rawedge Rim]

Guys, it is not arranged marriages as such that I (and I suspect Jem) have the issue with. I have known people from other cultures who had arranged marriages, though they live in America now, and they're fine with them. But they also were given the choice by their parents that if they could not stand their potential partner, that they did not have to go through with it.

The objection is also not to plural marriages, as long as the people are adults and willing.

The objection is that these particular marriages are involving children, who have not consented. And that these children are being raped and forced to bear their own children at very young ages, such as 12 and early teens.

I don't support children either forcibly or by consent being married at a young age, though what the youngest that can be legitamitly married varies depending on century, culture, etc. Heck, there are places in the US where it's legal to marry prior to it being legal to have sex, as crazy as that sounds.

As of the early 21st century, in the "West", pretty muchly any marraige, forced or by consent is, by societal norms, (which is what we always have to work with) prior to age 16, considered immoral and is usually illegal. At 16 it depends on a few things, and older is usually considered OK. Regardless, forced, in the "West" is still illegal and immoral.

As to this polygamist, I'm with the majority here, I think his "marraiges" and such are a dodge to use underage girls for sex.

[emotional leper]

Guys, it is not arranged marriages as such that I (and I suspect Jem) have the issue with. I have known people from other cultures who had arranged marriages, though they live in America now, and they're fine with them. But they also were given the choice by their parents that if they could not stand their potential partner, that they did not have to go through with it.

The objection is also not to plural marriages, as long as the people are adults and willing.

The objection is that these particular marriages are involving children, who have not consented. And that these children are being raped and forced to bear their own children at very young ages, such as 12 and early teens.

Here is where your argument fails. They cannot, by definition, give consent. Therefore, it doesn't matter if they consent or not; legally, they are always assumed to be unable to do so, and an inability to give consent defaults to 'no.' That's why it's rape if you have sex with someone in a coma.

Your argument would only hold water if people that young were legally able to give consent.

[Avatar]

Sorry, what argument fails exactly? We're not talking about the age of consent here, but the fact thereof.

In this particular case, it's obvious that "real" consent was lacking, (as opposed to the consent but not old enough to) since some of these kids are looking for help. Which is enough to convince me that they don't want to be married to these men.

--A

[emotional leper]

Sorry, what argument fails exactly? We're not talking about the age of consent here, but the fact thereof.

In this particular case, it's obvious that "real" consent was lacking, (as opposed to the consent but not old enough to) since some of these kids are looking for help. Which is enough to convince me that they don't want to be married to these men.

--A

It's not obvious that 'real' consent was lacking. And if you want to prosecute someone for something, prove it in a court of law first.

Oh, wait. Our libero-fascist laws don't allow people under the age of 18 to consent. People who so recently owned property and were considered adults. Maybe that's why our Youth are so rebelious these days. We're treating them like simpering infants.

But back to the point.

[Cail]

Libero-fascist?

The older I get, the more I'm convinced that no one under the age of 25 should be able to make any decisions.

But I'm willing to entertain this, because I sort of agree with it. First of all, just about every state in the union has an age of consent of 16. So at what age do you think a person can consent to sex EL?

[Avatar]

Hey, I'm a liberal darwinian anarcho-facist.

Always find this an interesting one myself, and I come down on the liberal side of it usually. (Liberal in the true sense of the word, not in whatever political interpretation people give it.)

(Oh, and what was the argument that failed btw? And I'd usually consider somebody running away to the police as evidence of lack of consent.)

--A