Evangelist: 'Puberty' is age of sexual consent

And all the chemicals in our food.

Why? Because pre-teen, teen, and even newly post-teen brains are tiny, underdeveloped, and immature. This is why their decision making, forward planning, evaluation, cognitive assessment, judgment, and rational thinking processes are so pathetic, and why if not restrained and guided they make complete disasters of their lives. As much as they hate to hear it, adults do know better and are smarter than teens.

The main problem is that young people have underdeveloped brains in which the key areas concerning forward planning, judgment, careful reasoning, self control, and all the other things I mentioned previously, are still immature. These areas don’t finish developing until after 21 years of age.

This is why no matter how many times they are taught to do the right thing, and no matter how many times you demonstrate to them that certain actions lead to ill consequences, you cannot rely on them to make intelligent, sensible, and maturely considered decisions. Their brains are simply weak in these areas. They’re emotional morons, they’re incredibly bad planners, they can’t think seriously about anything beyond about a week, and their reasoning skills are just atrocious.

You can give them all the sex education you want, they’re still going to sleep around, practice unsafe sex, and have unwanted pregnancies. You can give them all the driver education you want, they’ll still act like idiots on the road. Same with cigarettes, drugs and alcohol. All the education in the world won’t stop them grabbing a ciggy, drinking themselves blind, and shooting up. They’ll do it because they want to, and because their peers tell them to do so. They’re not complete morons, they’re just not in sufficient control of themselves. They’re not completely rational beings, they’re running on hormones.

That’s why we have to keep certain privileges away from them, because they’re incapable of reliably exercising them responsibly. This is also why they are so easily manipulated by the media and their peer groups, and why when they enter university they’re so easily swept up into the local eagerly waiting cult/political/environmental/other lobby groups. Their minds are intellectual putty. Great for messing about with, almost useless for thinking properly.

These days? Sheesh my granmother came home preggers at that age.

It’s not only these days fortigurn it’s been going on for thousands of eyars that teenagers have been promisous. It’s nothing new.

SO how old was Jesus’ mother when she was pregnant? 13? 14?

Teenage girls have been breeding successfully since the dawn of whaddeva. the last hundred years, or so, we have artificially extended childhood by imposing education on all in the west.

Yawn. Society dealing with its fetishisation of youth… Youth is now a commodity like anything else. We can’t buy it, despite the beauty industry, so we try to control it.

I didn’t leave school 'til I was 23. Spent the last ten years, building a career. I am still not particularly solvent, due to my choice of career. Now I have a miniscule window of time before the menopause to attract a mate (a hell of a lot less easy in your 30s than when you are 17, believe me, for all everyone’s talk about teens not being ‘ready’…), and breed. Started to menstruate when I was 11.

I think women get tired of hearing they are too stupid before 25 and too ugly after. That’s always the not particularly subtle subtext.

well, precisely that attitude has done humanity well enough for hundreds of thousands of years. the idea of a ‘legal age of consent’ is a very recent one, and the actual line is purely arbitrary. anyway, if you say that 18 year olds can vote in one country, why can’t they drink there too? why does the age of consent vary so much in different countries? it is arbitrary, and really means very little. let’s pout the age of consent up to 50, because i’m sure we’re all so much wiser at 50.

These days? Sheesh my granmother came home preggers at that age.

It’s not only these days fortigurn it’s been going on for thousands of eyars that teenagers have been promisous. It’s nothing new.[/quote]

I said these days many kids are having sex in their early teens and society is getting used to it. That wasn’t the case in my grandmother’s day, or yours.

Doubtful. I don’t know how old, but it’s doubtful that she was that young. Rabbinical commentaries seem to indicate an older age was common for girls.

I don’t think compulsory education extends childhood. Every society going back tens of thousands of years has had a form of compulsory education.

I think you’ll find that controlling youth is a theme of human societies for about the last 30,000 years. And for extremely good reasons. They need to be controlled. It’s only in the last 10 years or so that we’ve been able to understand scientifically exactly why they need to be controlled, and the extent to which that control needs to be applied.

I think breeding is best done when you’re able to support yourself financially, and you’re mentally and emotionally mature. There’s a wealth of evidence indicating teenage mothers are less than the best choice.

That’s not the subtext here. All kids are ‘stupid’ before 25 (for a given value of ‘stupid’).

Evidence?

You’re right, the idea of a ‘legal age of consent’ is very recently indeed. I think it’s only documented back to about 4,000 years.

You would have to ask the people concerned. But different types of decisions require different forms of judgment, and incur different levels of potential harm. The potential for harm by allowing an 18 year old to vote is considerably less than letting them drink, or drink and drive.

It differs for a range of reasons. But no, it is not always arbitrary, and in many cases it means a great deal.

There’s no need for that. If you read the relevant scholarly literature (and I would advise people participating in this thread to do so, it will mean we’re not simply all airing our personal prejudices), you’ll find the relevant intellectual and emotional maturity is fully formed by 25 at latest.

[quote=“Fortigurn”] I said these days many kids are having sex in their early teens and society is getting used to it. That wasn’t the case in my grandmother’s day, or yours.

Well my granmother and pops certinaly got used to it pretty quickly. So did many of their friends. OK nobody spoke about it so openly but they was all the same thinking about it and doing it. Before our grandmothers there were there mther and grandmothers who were doing to same thing.

As for Mary, many scholars thinks she was in her early teens… but young she was. Just hat God is just as perverted as the rest of humanity.

Did Jesus die for God’s sins too?

so 25 years old is the new line, then?

wow.

and you always ask for evidence. what is it with you? how can we get evidence of people having children at the age of puberty, except by an extension of possibility. it is possible at puberty, so it has happened at puberty for a looong time. as long ago as John found that it could actually fit into mary, mary got pregnant as soon as possible. i mean, most cavemen died before 30 so they have to have squeezed out a few before 20 or so or we would not be here.

4,000 years, if true, is an extremely short blink in the history of humanity. unless you believe that it all started 6,000 years ago.

[quote=“Satellite TV”][quote=“Fortigurn”] I said these days many kids are having sex in their early teens and society is getting used to it. That wasn’t the case in my grandmother’s day, or yours.

Well my granmother and pops certinaly got used to it pretty quickly. So did many of their friends. OK nobody spoke about it so openly but they was all the same thinking about it and doing it.[/quote]

I’ve put the important parts in bold. Your grandmother and pops don’t constitute ‘society’, and the fact that ‘nobody spoke about it so openly’ confirms my point.

Yes there were. But nowhere near as many, and nowhere near as accepted.

I don’t think ‘many scholars’ who are actually academically relevant think she was in her early teens.

Well He would have been if He had actually had sex with her, but he didn’t.

I don’t think anyone has suggested 25 years as the age of consent, no.

Sorry, I’m used to discussions on a forum with higher standards. A place where wild speculation and personal prejudices are not considered evidence, where posters are required to make intelligent, rational arguments on the basis of verifiable evidence, and where use of appropriate scholarly literature and recognized academic works is both common and encouraged. It’s a religious forum.

That is not actually what I am asking you for.

That isn’t the point under contention.

What? I have read this several times, but it is completely incongruent with any of the relevant accounts (historical or otherwise). It simply makes no sense at all. What’s this about John getting Mary pregnant as soon as possible? Who’s this ‘John’? Not John the Baptist obviously, and Mary’s husband was Joseph.

This is not being disputed. I’m looking for evidence that ‘that attitude has done humanity well enough for hundreds of thousands of years’, where ‘that attitude’ refers to puberty being the age of consent, and ‘well enough’ means some kind of quantifiable social good which was subsequently lost when a higher age of consent was proposed. But perhaps neither of those are what you meant, in which case I’ve misunderstood you.

If all you meant by ‘well enough’ is ‘humans reproduced’, then I agree. The attitude that puberty is the age of consent is perfectly ok if all we’re interested in is human reproduction. It also has benefits for older men and women interested in having sex with pubescent teens and pre-teens.

It is extremely short in the history of humanity. But in your terms it’s incredibly long. I don’t believe you had 4,000 years in mind when you made your post. Possibly 250.

From these recent posts I think it’s clear that Namahottie’s distaste for the original statement she quoted is a minority opinion these days. As in Australia, it seems that elsewhere in Western society puberty is considered the new age of consent, if only de facto.

I’d keep the UK age of consent, i.e. 16. And I wouldn’t lock people up if the age difference wasn’t too much, i.e. 17 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend.

Why would you do that, sir? And please don’t post a picture as your response.

Why would you do that, Magesty? And please, Sire, don’t post a picture as your response :notworthy: [/quote]
Based on the Slate article I linked to, the studies he quoted, my considerable life experience and my royal infallibility. Shouldn’t you be more snivelling?

Why would you do that, Magesty? And please, Sire, don’t post a picture as your response :notworthy: [/quote]
Based on the Slate article I linked to, the studies he quoted, my considerable life experience and my royal infallibility. Shouldn’t you be more snivelling?[/quote]

Now that’s a good answer.

The discussion has gotten very vague and abstract, losing sight of the subject of the OP: polygamous pedophile preacher Tony Alamo. I recognize that the State of Texas recently bungled its raid on a pedophile polygamous cult, but do any of you really believe Alamo and his girls are just engaging in a matter of freedom of choice and a natural, healthy lifestyle?

Seems more like a wacko con man preying on vulnerable children to me.

[quote]These days, he can be heard regularly defending the breakaway Mormon sect in Texas. . . During an April broadcast, the pastor proclaimed that the government had no right to take 10-year-old wives away from their rightful “husbands”: “[color=#FF0000]What I’m doing is fighting for these people that they, the ungodly beast, is throwing into prison for marrying someone 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11-10[/color], if they’ve reached puberty.”

. . . [color=#FF0000]The IRS eventually revoked the church’s tax-exempt status [/color]in 1985 after determining that it was really a profit-making entity meant to fund Alamo’s luxurious lifestyle. However, the pastor continued to ignore his taxes, and the [color=#FF0000]IRS eventually seized millions of dollars in Alamo’s church property [/color]and business interests and put him behind bars. After [color=#FF0000]Alamo served four years of a six-year sentence[/color], all of his properties, businesses, and nonprofits were registered under the names of his followers. Since his release in 1998, he’s been trying to make a comeback and has targeted New York/New Jersey as one of several areas for growth-and for his polygamous radio message. . .

[color=#FF0000]Ondrisek says his sister began taking “field trips” to Alamo’s house with other girls when she was just 10[/color]. “She would come back with, like, new clothes,” he says. “By the time I was old enough to realize what was happening-it was just disgusting.” Now, he says, she is 19 years old and lives full-time at Alamo’s house as one of his “wives.”

. . . [color=#FF0000]Sarah, the youngest, was only six years old when she says she first realized that something strange was going on between Pastor Alamo and some of the girls [/color]in the church. “It was just totally obvious. I went to go visit Tony in prison, and he kissed all the women,” she says. It was her first indication that Alamo had multiple wives, many of whom, ex-members say, he married when they were still children. A naturally rebellious and skeptical kid, she says she was beaten and confined for her many infractions, which included talking back to a teacher and listening to music not approved by Alamo.

. . . Alamo eventually ordered Sarah and Angie, the two youngest, to live at his house for months at a time while their mother remained in another of the church compounds five hours away-Sarah because she needed to be watched, and Angie because she was being groomed to be Alamo’s next wife. Phoebe and Sarah say that [color=#FF0000]Angie went to live at Alamo’s house permanently when she was 12. By 13, she was wearing a wedding ring, and, at 14, she was spending the night in Alamo’s bedroom.[/color] Eventually, Sarah was kicked out at age 15 for kissing a young man that Alamo didn’t approve of;

. . . Alamo waxed poetic about menstruation: “The Bible is filled with stories where God commanded young women to get married. When they start their periods, they are women, according to God’s word. [color=#FF0000]They should be able to be married at 13, 14, 15 years old, and in cases if they’ve menstruated already, 12 years old[/color].” He also contends that Mary was as young as six at the time she conceived Jesus, and sarcastically asks if God could be considered a pedophile

. . . While Alamo publicly says he’s not a polygamist, and challenges outsiders to “find marriage licenses about me being married to anybody,” [color=#FF0000]ex-members say he has unofficially “married” at least eight girls as young as eight years old[/color][/quote]
rickross.com/reference/alamo/alamo14.html

[quote]children, and in some cases adults, being violently paddled for what Alamo deemed as bad behavior.

“There were a number of boys who got spanked. They’d hold them up, spread-eagle, then one of the big brothers would just take the board and let them have it over and over and over,” she said. “I couldn’t tell how or why they held it together. Many of them fell apart, screaming bloody murder.”

Not unlike [color=#FF0000]11-year-old Justin Miller, who at the Saugus, California church in 1988, received more than 100 swats on the orders of Alamo by phone. . . . In 1990, U.S. Circuit Judge Morris Arnold awarded Miller’s family almost $1.5 million in Fort Smith federal court for the beating[/color]
[/quote]
rickross.com/reference/alamo/alamo13.html

[quote] Six minors have been temporarily placed in state custody as part of a child porn investigation after a raid on a ministry run by a man who says “consent is puberty” when it comes to sex. . .

an e-mail that authorities inadvertently sent to media members last week referred to 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls.

. . . News of the raid brought Anthony Justin Lane, 34, into Fouke from his job roofing in nearby Texarkana, hoping for some word about his family.

Lane said he has been [color=#FF0000]trying for 10 years to reunite with his children, who belong to Alamo’s ministry. Lane said he saw a 13-year-old girl marry a man of about 40 [/color]just before he was kicked out of the church for asking too many questions.

Lane hired a lawyer and said that he is trying to subpoena his girlfriend, but that it remains difficult as she moves among Alamo’s churches in Arkansas and California.

Lane said he last saw his oldest daughter, who would now be 13, in 2005. She offered him a pamphlet as he sat in his car reading a newspaper outside Alamo’s church in Fort Smith in 2005. When Lane told her he was her father, he said, she ran off.

He has received only a few photos since then of the 13-year-old, an 11-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old son from a relative. His longtime girlfriend was pregnant with the boy when Lane said he was expelled from the church for questioning its practices. [/quote]
rickross.com/reference/alamo/alamo20.html

[quote] If only she prayed hard enough, she could make Susan Alamo rise from the dead.

[color=#FF0000]At age 12, having not set foot outside a religious compound in Arkansas since she was 4,[/color] Elishah Franckiewicz believed it was possible.

Day after day, she lay down beside the corpse, dressed in a wedding gown, for Susan Alamo was “the bride of God.” And day after day, she endured beatings by church elders because the dead woman – wife to sect founder Tony Alamo – did not open her eyes.

“We prayed over her open coffin for months,” said Franckiewicz, now 37 and an English teacher at an area community college. “When she didn’t come back to life, Tony (Alamo) started losing his mind. He believed that it was because the devil was in the children, because we had weak souls.”

On Sunday, the morning after federal investigators raided the Arkansas headquarters of Alamo’s ministry as part of a child pornography investigation, Franckiewicz, for a brief moment, became that 12-year-old again.

In a resolute voice, [color=#FF0000]she made clear how she and others in the greater Portland area endured and escaped unspeakable abuses at the compound. Franckiewicz fled in 1985 at age 15. [/color]

. . . Franckiewicz says she was the first baby born at Alamo’s first compound in California. Years after her escape, [color=#FF0000]she testified against Tony Alamo, now 74, whom she describes as a “seriously dangerous man[/color],” in his tax evasion trial in 1994.

. . . Franckiewicz said Sunday she decided to tell her story because she worries that the public will be swayed by Alamo’s arguments that his group is being persecuted. At one time, she says, [color=#FF0000]Alamo was married to 10 girls ages 15 and younger[/color], including her two nieces

. . . Followers were expected to get jobs out in the world, Franckiewicz said, but were ordered to give their entire paychecks to the Alamos’ foundation. . . .

bonds between parents in the compound and their children were often broken and the Alamos made all decisions.

“Whatever the leader says to do, happens,” Franckiewicz said. “The parents of children in the compound are not what we understand as parents. They’re not protectors. They’re not nurturers. They do whatever Tony tells them to do to their children.”

Children were taught in a school on-site and rarely if ever permitted to leave.

Nearly everything - including playing house - was considered “evil,” Franckiewicz said. . .

[color=#FF0000]“We didn’t know that wasn’t normal,” she recalls. “We only knew what they told us.” [/color]

. . . Week after week, she recalls attending prayer vigils, and even lying down and curling up next to Susan Alamo’s rotting corpse. “She smelled,” Franckiewicz said. “She was cold and really, really hard. She was dead.”

Soon, children were being subjected to horrible beatings for every day Susan Alamo remained dead. “That’s my worst memory,” she said. “The beatings were severe. We were hit with 2-by-6 boards drilled with holes.” [/quote]
rickross.com/reference/alamo/alamo17.html

Would you argue it is all perfectly decent and natural if your daughter was one of his “wives”, had been held captive in the compound for years, and was cut off from the outside world?

Aren’t most sexual relationships between men over age 40 and girls under age 16 also coercive and predatory and statements to the contrary by the man are simply rationalization for his illegal acts and desires?

I don’t think Tony Alamo is saying that puberty marks the age of consent. I think he’s saying that puberty is consent. In other words, once a girl starts to bleed, that means that Tony Alamo is allowed to sleep with her, whatever her own feelings on the matter.

Ages of consent are inherently problematic. On one hand there’s obviously no stark dividing line for maturity in real life; on the other hand, the legal system kind of needs one. And how is the law to deal with underaged teenagers who have sex–or those on either side of the (arbitrary) boundary line? Some countries allow consent from an underaged person (probably a girl) provided the boy is within a few years of her in age, and this seems wise to me.

Interesting side-questions: Is it different for girls and boys? (Developmentally, surely yes.) Is an “underaged boy” harmed when a substantially older woman seduces him? Before you answer, what if the woman becomes pregnant? Would that change your answer? Or what if it were a homosexual relationship? (And then we need to ask, are lesbianism and male homosexuality the same in their effects on youth? I tend to doubt this.)

I would say 25 should be treated as a minimum age of marriage (socially, not legally, since this is unenforcable), not as a minimum age for sex which is of course ridiculous. 16 year olds are perfectly capable of using birth control, and if things go wrong…well, 16 year olds are also perfectly capable of setting their school on fire, but we seem capable of containing this danger. Anyway there’s always abortion.

No good information is available on the age at betrothal or marriage of Jesus’s parents. Medieval church tradition encouraged the speculation that Joseph was substantially older, since a previous marriage might explain Jesus’s “brothers” and “sisters” who are mentioned in the Bible (despite the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity). Rabbinic sources are from several centuries later, and an entirely different political environment. (And anyway, they say his true father was Ben Pantera!)

for a christian heretic, fortigurn, you’re so ORTHODOX. :laughing:

this is an internet forum, it is not a zone for academic discourse. you can bring your academic credentials if you wish, but i like the way you so readily dismiss academics who don’t agree with you. me, i spend all day in academia, and forumosa is a discussion and shoot-the-shit place, a welcome break. it’s not like i am saying anything indefensible here, on the other hand, despite the way in which you so often strenuously deny the validity of my comments.

so, back to the topic:

tony alamo is a schmuck, cloaking his greed and his desire for underage flesh in his interpretation of religion. he is not alone, by the way: the state of texas is pursuing cases against several people including warren jeffs. a similar case of religion perverting the pure going on there. can’t blame religion, i guess, the world is full of arseholes, religious or not doesn’t seem to make any difference.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]The discussion has gotten very vague and abstract, losing sight of the subject of the OP: polygamous pedophile preacher Tony Alamo. I recognize that the State of Texas recently bungled its raid on a pedophile polygamous cult, but do any of you really believe Alamo and his girls are just engaging in a matter of freedom of choice and a natural, healthy lifestyle?

Seems more like a wacko con man preying on vulnerable children to me.[/quote]

Same here. But I’m one of those boring ‘orthodox’ people who believe that the age of consent should be significantly higher than typical menarche.

Scientific research over the last 10 years or so has established an evidential line for maturity in real life which is substantially more demonstrable than the point at which a foetus is typically considered viable.

The same way they deal with other underaged crimes.

It makes no difference as far as I’m concerned.

Although 16 year olds are perfectly capable of setting their school on fire, they tend to do it a lot less than they have unwanted pregnancies. The reason for this is the significant difference between the two situations. The average 16 year old has no overwhelming urge to set their school on fire, still less an urge comparable to their sex drive. The average 16 year old is far more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy than set their school on fire because of their hormonal drive, lack of self control, lack of comprehension, lack of planning and cognitive skills, peer and social pressure to have sex, and general stupidity. There’s no comparison between the two.

But abortion isn’t supposed to be for birth control, remember? And 16 year olds are typically not supposed to have abortions.

There’s good information on their likely age.

But we don’t have to worry about medieval church tradition.

Not all the rabbinic sources are from several centuries older. The Targums, and certain of the Mishneh and Talmudic texts predate the 1st century. The Ben Pantera legend is only found in the later Talmudic texts.

Well I am a Christian, after all.

I realise that. But when it comes to discussing serious subjects, if people are going to make certain dogmatic truth claims, I’m going to ask for evidence.

I don’t appeal to any of my academic credentials, and I’d like to see examples of me readily dismissing academics who don’t agree with me. Can you give me a list?

I come to Forumosa for discussion, and when I discuss serious subjects I do so seriously. And it is like you’re saying something indefensible here. You often do. Your whole ‘cultural genocide’ thing is an example.

[quote]so, back to the topic:

tony alamo is a schmuck, cloaking his greed and his desire for underage flesh in his interpretation of religion. he is not alone, by the way: the state of texas is pursuing cases against several people including warren jeffs. a similar case of religion perverting the pure going on there. can’t blame religion, i guess, the world is full of arseholes, religious or not doesn’t seem to make any difference.[/quote]

All true. But if it’s ok for girls to have sex at menarche, then there’s no big deal, right?

But religion is based on wild speculation. There are no rational arguments based on verifiable evidence of any god.

The fact of the matter is that nobody has any idea bout the actual age of Mary when she got knocked up. Does it really matter?

There must be a reason that biologically our hormonea are raging at that age. The body is physically ready for reproduction. The animal kingdon is like that. Humans place laws which are contrary to nature.

Our youth now have the benefit of many years of education that was not available all that long ago.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Sorry, I’m used to discussions on a forum with higher standards. A place where wild speculation and personal prejudices are not considered evidence, where posters are required to make intelligent, rational arguments on the basis of verifiable evidence, and where use of appropriate scholarly literature and recognized academic works is both common and encouraged. It’s a religious forum…[/quote]
Surely that would be a better place for you to pursue such discussions, in that case. There’s a lot of godless heathens here who don’t consider ANYTHING in terms of religion to have “verifiable evidence” – other than the incontrovertible and immutable fact that you’re trying to use scientific discourse to discuss fairytales.

Fortigurn’s views may be a lot of things, but orthodox isn’t one of them, at least not if you look carefully. Sui generis seems a better description. I’m being polite now, because he was nice to me earlier :laughing:

You know I used to use Sui Generis as my nom de souris, but illiterates used to think I was a woman and hit on me.

What do you think of the slate article I linked to?