Zyr

This came to me, while I was just sitting around thinking. Thinking about how black and white some people think certain subjects are. There are few absolutes. I imagine this subject will be controversial, and anywhere else, I wouldn't post this. Nowhere else on the internet, that I've found, would I trust the maturity of the people to keep this a civil discussion, and not degenerate. I hope you will understand that this is just supposed to generate disscusion.

In recent times, pedophilia, or at least it's image, is on the rise. We hear about it more and more. Is there more of it going on, or is it just getting more news coverage? These are interesting questions, and worth discussing, but they are not the main questions this thread is asking. Children having sex. Is it wrong?

Automatically, I bet the vast majority of people would have jumped to "Of course", "Why is this guy even asking?", or even "He must be a pedophile, trying to justify his actions". Not unexpected, however, I must ask you to read the whole rest of the post, before jumping to conclusions.

Now, this question is in fact not the right question to be asking. The right question is when is it right or wrong for a child to have sex? (this may be considered to be the point at which they are no longer a child, but that is beside the point)

There are a few aspects that must be considered.

First, legality. In most countries there is an age of consent. Here (New Zealand) it is 16. A lot of places it is 18. I've heard of places where it is 13. This might seem to imply that somewhere around there, it becomes alright for a person to have sex, but there is variation all around the world, so this can't really be used as an indicator of morality. Not to mention that legality and morality don't always match.
The age of consent is, however a legal necessity. Below this age, a person cannot legally consent to sex, as consent would have been able to be obtained easily through coercion, as they would not fully understand the implications.

Another point is the physical development of the person. Untill a certain point, it would be uncomfortable, if not physically damaging, to engage in some sexual activities.

And that leaves us with the actual moral aspect. Given that both people are physically developed enough, and mentally developed enough to understand the implications (very subjective), is there a moral limit on the ages of the people? Does it matter if one person is older? Does it matter how much older? Does it matter which gender is the older?


I can already imagine the responces, and I love playing devil's advocate, so here's a pre-emptive answer.

"Almost certainly, under the age of consent, a person would not understand the implications"
- But what if they did? Perhaps they can't, but is that because a young person has no capacity for such things, or because they are sheltered from anything sexual for many years? If they grew up in an enviroment where they were taught sex in an open way early on, wouldn't they then be able to make their choices in an informed way?


Discuss.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

Lak

I've thought about this before. It is truely one of the greyest of the grey areas in our society.
It's hard to know if consent is really real. What if, for example, the minor involved feels as if they understand the implications, even if, from a more mature person's perspective, they do not. They have considered the consequences as they see them and given consent - this is only wrong is the other party is aware that the minor does not fully understand even if they think they do.
What if both parties involves are minors, both of which are attempting to make a mature decision, and neither is knowingly deceiving the other? Wrong? They don't think so. Thus, who is harmed?
Do the same rules apply if the minor actually initiates a sexual encounter?
With another minor?
With an adult?
It's a thought.

Here's a question to ponder - when you hear the word 'peadophile' what do you think? I believe most people picture a predator in thier minds, someone who is a potential threat to thier children, loitering outside of schools with a big bag of finest stranger-candy.
I think this is unfair. The definition of a paedophile is not a sexual predator, but simply one who is attracted to children (or technically, persons under the age of consent). Surely there must be some population who can be classed 'paedophiles' who would never dream of abducting, forcing, or even coercing a minor into a sexual encounter. The implied image of a 'predator' on all paedophiles is analogous to an implied image of 'rapist' on all heterosexual males. Hardly fair. A point to consider. I'm interested to hear other opinions.

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Zyr

Excellent points. Pedophilia is just being attracted to children (prepubertal specifically), and requires no further action. Does this mean that it should be put in the same class as hetro and homosexuality? An unconcious attraction, something that you are born with?

Homosexuality has become acceptable in our society, where once it was perverse. Why should pedophilia be considered perverse when it too, is simply a desire, unchangeable as it is, like homosexuality and hetrosexuality? Of course, there are many reasons for minors not to have sex, as stated above, however, should the desire itself be considered wrong, when other desires are not?

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

Lak

Exactly. Being attracted to children harms precisely no-one.
Here's something else to consider, in the vein of paedophilia being comparable to hetero/homosexuality:
Take some fictional homosexual male. He may be scared or intimidated by opinions of homosexuality around him. In New Zealand at least, most young men use the term 'gay' freely and frequently as an insult. This guy is afraid to come out to his friends or family, and as a consequence keeps any relationships he pursues secret, and always feels judged, or inferior, or less of a man, and so on.
If these kind of trials ace someone who is a homosexual, something which is reasonably accepted in modern society, what does it feel like to be a paedophile, where you cant pursue any relationships at all? If you were to 'come out' to anyone, you could easily be reported to the police! Let alone fear of being shunned by your peers, how about fear of being arrested? Being registered as a sex offender, and having to tell your new neighbours when you move towns: "Hey, I'm your new neighbour, and I'm required by law to tell you that I'm a paedophile." Sounds like life sucks for a closet paedophile.
There was a song about this even, "Deformative" by Black Eyes.
Opinions?

__________________
ignorance really is bliss.

Bill O'Rights

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

The_Jazz

Interesting thoughts. I agree that (in theory) the simple sexual attraction to children is not in and of itself a crime and should not be judged as one. However, how many of us are able to resist our sexual urges of a more acceptable nature? A pedophile by nature is going to act on their urges one way or another, whether it is by actually assaulting a child or by assaulting by proxy through kiddy porn.

Personally, I am pretty uncomfortable with this analogy. There is a stigma that the gay community is more likely to spawn pedophiles than the straight community, and that's somehting that just isn't backed up by the facts. Regardless of the strides that Western society has made in the past decades, it's still there.

I understand the point you're trying to make here Lak, but it's pretty clear to be that it's a little myopic. Prepubescent children have little or no power to refuse sexual contact, and most do not understand it. It's clearly a power issue, and there is no doubt that children involved in pedophilia are victims of it. Anytime that a sexual relationship involves a predator and a victim (including adult rape), there's something criminal about it, and the perpetrators need to be punished.

kutulu

It's quite obvious (to me at least) why pedophilia is on the rise. It's a crime where virtually all of hte attackers were former victims. Since most attackers usually find more than one victim, each generation has a larger base of future attackers. Unless an effective method of treating victims before they can become attackers is developed it will get progressively worse with each generation.

chriswin8

Hmm this jusat came to mind.

Say you have a 13 year old who has the matruity and the mental capasity of a
30 year old. That is phyiscly fully developed. Do you beleive that this person can consent to the act of sex. IMO this pesron is ready.

Then on the other side of the coin you have a 30 Year old who has the Matruity and mental capasity of a 13 year old (Special). That is phyiscly fully developed, do you beleive that this person can consent to the act of Sex. IMO this person is not ready.

What are your takes on these two posibilitys.

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

The_Jazz

The first problem is that your first possibility is impossible from a medical standpoint. A thirteen year old could never have the mental capacity of a 30 year old, especially from an emotional point of view. There's no way that any thirteen year old could be wordly enough to deal with sex with an adult (predator), even if their body is mature.

The second problem is that someone who is "special" (as you put it) inside the parameters that you described would actually be very high functioning and could easily live on their own and hold a job. They would know right from wrong, be able for form emotional relationships and possess judgement skills. And at age 30, they should have enough life skills to deal with sex. People with this kind of developmental delay usually don't seem that unusual, although they are most likely doomed to low-paying jobs.

Sorry, I just don't see where the first possibility is even plausible enough to discuss, and the second one is so common that we know the outcome already.

Bill O'Rights

I don't think that it's as easy as that. I don't have the stats, but I'd venture that, although a sizable amount were, nowhere near all of the attackers were former victims. As far as pedophilia growing exponentially...if that were the case, then within the next 10 generations, or so, everyone will be a pedophile, and quite normal for a 45 year old to take a 12 year old spouse. Somehow...I just don't see it. But, I've been wrong at least once before...so, who knows?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Bill O'Rights

Ok...that condition cannot happen. It's completely out of the realm of plausibility, therefore cannot be adequatly addressed.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

chriswin8

So much for "Discussion" huh.

__________________
I reject your reality, and substitute my own.

BigBen

I think I am going to jump back into the grey areas here, because the whole "13 year-old" and "30 year-old" is almost black and white...

At the age of 13, I think it is clear that boys and girls (I use that term on purpose) are not ready. I was wearing my ass for a hat when I was 13. I also found out the wonder of masturbation, which I would state as being the start of my sexuality.

At the age of 14, I was going crazy thinking about girls, and sex in general. I was actively looking for pictures of naked women, and this was the age before the internet. I was bloody fucking insane, and if a mature woman offered herself to me, I would have fucked her twice before her voice echoed off the closest wall.

At the age of 15, I saw my friends start to "hook-up" with girls; some pretty, some ugly, all of them kind of exploring the subject of sex. No actual intercourse, but to use the baseball analogy, there were some good runs at third-base. I, unfortunately, could not get a girlfriend. I tried, but I was uncoordinated, shy, silly, and not very good-looking (in a 15 year-old standard of beauty). If a mature woman would have offered, I would have run away from embarrasment.

At 16, I was ready. I knew what to do, I knew how, but there was just no Who or When.

__________________
3.141592654
Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

Zyr

Seeing as people seemed to have missed it, here is the pre-emptive answer to the responce I knew was coming:
This is, in fact, the responce to the 13/30 year old example. You say that a 13 year old would never, never, have the capacity to understand what they need to, to have sex. But why is that? Perhaps it is impossible, but that is why these are hypothetical situations. I was trying to discuss the morality behind the decision to have sex. Given that it is possible for the minor to have a higher mental (or perhaps more accurately, emotional) capacity, is it alright?

The comparisons to homosexuality were not ment to infer that homosexuals are pedophiles, or more likely to be pedophiles. The example could have used another sexual preference. Perhaps it should have been like this: "Why should [attraction to centain group of people] be acceptable when [other attraction to another certain group of people] is not?"

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

The_Jazz

Zyr, I understand your point about homosexuality, but this is a real sore point with some of my gay friends, and I guess their outrage has rubbed off on me.

As far as your point goes, I think that it basically boils down to the fact that the object of affection (in the case of pedophila) can only be a victim. Prepubescent children can't really have much of an understanding of the emotions and issues of sex and can't make the decisions necessary to willfully engage in it. The best analogy that comes to mind is someone in a persistent vegatative state. Before they were incapacitated, they may have consented but in this condition there is now way for them to agree. If someone has a sexual prediliction for the comatose, acting on it is rape under all definitions of the act. I willingly conceed that there may be an age when concent is possible (which has been lightly touched upon in the parrallel thread), but when you are talking about prepubescent children (under the age of 12), it just isn't possible, and I doubt that there is a culture in the world that looks kindly upon those that would argue otherwise. Even the fundamentalist Mormons with multiple (and underage) wives don't marry their girls off until 14 or so (no offense to any Mormons out there in the ether - this is just the best example that comes to mind immediately).

As far as your first point goes, I still think that you're asking the mountain to come to Mohammed. There is no "magic age" for all young people where they're suddenly able to emotionally have sex. For some it might be as late as 18, and for some it might be as young as 16. I can't imagine that it would be any younger, especially when we're specifically discussing sex with an adult. I'm using 21 as the minimum age for my adult. There are just too many life experiences and emotional issues that are unresolved up to a certain, unspecified point in life.

william

Reading these topics makes me wonder - does anyone remember sex-ed classes? I can't speak for all, I had mine in middle school in the 70's. Talked A LOT about stds; mentioned birth control - and the fact that nothing is 100% guaranteed against pregnancy (condom+pill=99% efective).
I can't say someone is physically ready to have kids at 13 or not, but I can tell you that NO 13yo is ready to have a child. There would be too much put on that child (the 13yo) that they could not handle.
As far as I understand some laws of the U.S., the age of consent was lower so that families could get started sooner (1800s). But families also used to be 8 or 10 large to work the farms. Those days are over. While time has moved on, some laws have not.

ASU2003

Here is another question. Should the age of consent be lower for boys versus what it is for girls? There was that trial down in Florida with that attractive female teacher having sex with minors, but as BigBen said earlier "if a mature woman offered herself to me, I would have fucked her twice before her voice echoed off the closest wall." And I don't think any teenage boy would be harmed by that, it is a fantasy of a lot of us. 20 years from now, will the boy look back on his encounters with the teacher as a good thing or a bad thing in his life? Did it harm his development and future relationships any? I am a depressed 26 year old because that student has more experience than me. I know that if any girl was willing to have sex with me at any age past 12, it would not have been a problem with me, and would have saved me some money in therapy bills. I'm not sure I would have felt that I'd been taken advantage of by the adult. Is it sexist to think that girls under 18 wouldn't view their sexual encounters with older guys the same way?

Of course it would be different if it was forced or if money exchanged hands, but I doubt that happens very often.

The weirdest thing I ever found out about this was, if you were under 18 and ever took naked pictures of yourself, it is considered child porn. I wonder if you could charge a kid with child porn laws? And now with the webcams and digital pictures, I would bet that a lot of high school bf/gf couples have transmitted images of themselves to each other, but when they turn 18, the things they saw in person become illegal.

I could see the argument that pedophilia has more to do with the environment and situations in your life. Or maybe their brains are biologically setup to find girls that look healthy and fertile, but it just happens that society (rightly, IMO) protects the girls who wouldn't be able to handle it. And the Dads that make the laws don't want their 13-14 year old daughter getting hit on by a 30 year old.

The final thought I had, and have no idea about the answer is: If a pedophile had a real girlfriend/boyfriend relationship growing up in their early teens, would they still be so interested in young girls?

william

The trial of the teacher in Tampa is a good example - she was 25 w/a 14yo (and his cousin, as driver). She was a teacher - ONE TO SET THE EXAMPLE, and she blew it. I've seen pics of her and her husband, both good lookers. He dumped her, and I don't blame him. She - what? had to have this kid?
The bottom line is that adults need to watch out for children (of all ages). I've seen people laugh about this circumstance, but I haven't heard anyone laugh about a 25yo guy w/a 14yo girl.

ASU2003

It's because every guy at 14 isn't going to think twice about the consequences. If the teacher had herpes, or some other non-life threatening STD, I'm sure the biological urge to mate with an attractive, willing female would override all logical thought. Attractive girls don't need to persuade teenage boys to get with them.

What would you think if the 14 year old boy talked to woman into it, and was the initiator? Did she still commit a crime?

Bill O'Rights

Yes. As a 25 year old...no, as a 25 year old teacher I expect her to have the intellect, the common sense, the maturity, and yes, the morals to understand that acting on the impulse to have sex with a 14 year old is wrong.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Zyr

I have to say I disagree with this. However, the age of consent is nessacery, as it would be hard if not impossible to determine whether or not the minor truely understood what they were doing when they consented. My point is that they may in fact know what they are doing. But no one else could really know, and we have to protect those that can't protect themselves.

If a homosexual had a hetrosexual relationship growing up in their early teens, would they still be homosexual?
(OK, yes, I know, bringing up homosexuality again. Once more, I'm just trying to use a group that has an different sexual preference than the majority of the population, but is acceptable.)

I think it's just an attraction. It's not something they can control. While it's true that victims of child abuse are more likely to grow up and abuse children themselves, perhaps leading to the conclusion that pedophilia is caused by outside influences, I think this is more a control thing, a predator/prey thing, than a genuine sexual attraction.

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

The_Jazz

Just to clarify - for the sake of this discussion, my definition of pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. a ten or eleven year old. Someone who is 14 or 15 would not fit into my definition, which I'm just using to prove my point. The older the child, the harder it is to draw a line. I think that most everyone here would agree that anyone attracted to a prepubescent child is dangerous and should at the very least be monitored to make sure that they do not give in to their urges.

Or have I completely missed the boat here?

xepherys

I think an interesting question here would be this... if there were no age of consent, and no morality involved, what is the youngest age of female (or male) that you would engage in sexual activities with. Be honest!

Let's use the US as an example, where 16-18 is the age of consent in most states (again though, for this case, it's not really an issue).

Me... 18? Hell yeah. 17? Hell yeah. 16? Honestly, probably... sorry, but there are a LOT of 16 y/o girls out there that really get guys motivated (and many you'd assume were 17 or 18 by their looks anyhow). Remember, as for the "Oh, but she can't make a good decision for herself" argument.. there are 27 y/o girls that can't either. Is a monogamous 16 year old girl really somehow morally worse than a 26 year old girl that sleeps around?

What if you met a girl at a party, she appeared "legal"... you hit it off, took her home and had sex, only to find out the next day she was 15. How would you feel? Other than scared about potential legal repurcussions... would you feel guilty? What if she turned out to be 14? 13? I know it sounds crazy, but there ARE 13 and 14 y/o girls that could pass for 17 or 18. At what point would you go from feeling like "oops" to "OMG what did I do?!?!"

xepherys

See, this is a problem with society today. There was some lapse of reality over the last hundred years that prevents people who are under 18 (or 16 or whatever) from being taken seriously, and hence most of them act "like children". Some examples of why this is false:

At age 16 he was researching a legitimate science? How could he have the mental capabilities for that?

He left school and started working at age 15? What a tragedy... except he went on to become a Wing Commander for the RAF and was "recognized personally by the king".

Wait, so he started writing FAMOUS music and TOURING at age 7? Today this would be child exploitation (or acting). But this wasn't today's modern era of bullshit TV and looking cute for the camera.

Ben Franklin ran away from home when he was 17 to live and work in Philly (sure, most people even today are "accepting" of 17 y/o emancipation, but still not all people are).

Anne Frank was only 13 when she penned, "I can't tell you how oppressive it is never to be able to go outdoors, also I am very afraid that we will be discovered and shot." That sounds very mature and reasonable... maybe it's a silly example, but she was 13 and able to go through what she did. Of course it was an atrocity, but the mental and emotioanl capabilities to withstand something like that shows great maturity.

The Children's Crusade of 1212 was started by a boy named Stephen who was believed to be 12 or 13 years old.

Throughout history, "children" of many years younger than we normally consider "of age" have done very important, very impressive and very mature things. Over this last century, we have curbed that a great deal, and treat people like kids even soemtimes until they are in their early 20's. "If you live under my roof" is garbage if you expect your offspring to grow up and have any clue how to ACT mature and be an adult. I know several people who were VERY shilded as kids, and when they went off to college they were the biggest partiers, biggest sluts and often had no idea how to take care of themselves.

My conclusion? Maybe you shouldn't have sex with a 13 y/o, but don't assume that JUST because they've only been on this earth for 13 years they cannot possibly have any worldly knowledge or understanding. Plenty of people much older don't... plenty of younger people do. Don't judge based on age alone.

xepherys

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

From a reality standpoint, when there are different ages of consent in a locality for males and females... the female is always (or almost always) the younger of the two.

Bossnass

Two points:

I recall back in high-school I had an extensive family heritage assignment. I learned that my great-grandparents were married in 1920, both rural children or grandchildren of pioneers. I'm told that they met the day he returned from WWI and were married a few months later. He was 20. She was barely 14. First child at 15. They went on to a 50 year marriage and 9 children. I never met either, but it is an example of a 14 year old girl assuming the role of homemaker and mother. We'll never know details, but she seemed successful.

I know historically that young brides aren't uncommon. But no way would I approve of a 20 year old "man" marrying a 14 year old girl now. Further consideration that he had travelled to europe, served time in the trenches, life-and-death harsh experiences. And she had probably literally 'barely been off the farm'.

Sign of modern times that young people can lead a younger life longer?


Second, and I don't mean to make this trivial, but since I was a boy who was noticing girls, and throughout my teens, etc, I often preached the "half-your-age-plus-seven" rule. I never personally had a relationship that pushed a limited, but I had friends that lived by it. It was a hard and fast rule that made pretty good sense at the time, but when looking at the grey area of age of consent, I honestly think that it is applicable.

You're 13 or 14, you can do what you will with people of your age. You're 16, you can go 15 without a problem. 18 can go 16. 30 can go 22. Etc. But if you are 25, you can go for the 19.5-20 year old, not the 14.

Zeraph

I would think this is obvious, but not so as apparent from some posts. As far as the ped thing goes, it is bad because it is detrimental to our species. Homosexuality is not. In fact they have shown benefits of having HS in our species. Pedophilia on the other hand, instead of giving a long argument, can you think of any benefits? There are none.

Zyr

Zeraph: This has side tracked a little, but I really am going to have to ask; what benefits are there to having homosexuals? I can't think of any, though I haven't given it a lot of thought. Can you give some examples?

As for the age I would consider to be the minimum, I would want to have a relationship with someone on the same level as me, emotionally speaking, which, as people have pointed out, would not likely be anyone very young.

xepherys makes a good point, why is sex different? Why is it amazing and heroic for children through the ages to do some things, but they are sheltered from sexual issues?

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

Zeraph

Sure, Zyr. When in times of economic stress (doesn't apply to our current society as much, but it could in the future if we ever regress) having a homosexual in the family is another "helper" (anything from farming, to helping around the house) that doesn't have offspring to care for. Meaning you increase your immediate genes (very similar to your own) survival rate through dry periods (like when theres not enough food.) It's a round about way of continuing your genes through natural selection without producing any direct offspring. The selective advantage in this case is a family unit that has an extra adult helper free of the extra burden of offspring. Homosexuals would also be more likely to stay in the family, rather than leaving, since they don't need to be married off.

There have even been suggestions that when we start to overpopulate the homosexual population rises, because we've evolved to "know" when times of stress are likely to occur in the future.

So I didn't say that perfectly, it's been awhile since I learned about it, but that's the gist of it.

xepherys

Zeraph-

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here, but the opposite fo your example could be used as well. Girls beginning to have children as soon as they are able (say 12-13) means MANY more children in her lifetime (maybe 2 or 3 more even?) which is more hands to work on the farm, more children to make sure you have living offspring, more older children to help with the younger as they get older. I certainly don't think that 13 y/o girls should be starting families these days, but it certainly had it's use back in the day and during economic stress periods like the depression.

Zeraph

Keep in mind that having children, is a very long term investment. You wouldn't want to do it in times of stress because it takes a long time to "pay off" the initial investment. They would also be more likely to die before they "paid off" their debt, thereby reducing their economic value even more.

The time of stress I was more referring to, is when there literally arn't enough resources to go around. Infertile land, droughts, over hunting, etc. Having more mouths to feed, because of the heavy cost of the initial investment (and then half of them leaving before they "pay off" it) would not help in such a time. But another adult, that can produce much more, and only has to feed him/herself is a lot more useful.

This is part of the same mechanism that brought us together in large alliances or groups. Simply having more kids doesn't usually help (not to mention who is watching/protecting all these extra kids?) but having more productive adults, does.

Zeraph

Thought I'd make 1 more post, to make sure there is no confusion. Say a kid takes 10 resources a year to raise. He would normally have 2 parents producing for him, say each adult can produce 5 resources a year (bad year for food, business, whatever) so they can just barely raise him with the risk of only producing 9 resources that year and having their kid die or be malnurished. If the brother of the father or mother in that family unit is gay, and decides to live with them, there is now 3 adults caring for the child and they can now produce 15 resources a year and live much more comfortably, without the risk of death. Adding another kid in that equation would cost 20 resources a year and would not help.

crow_daw

As usual, I think that stand-up comedy has shed some good light on a controversial issue.

On this issue in particular, Dave Chappelle has made some excellent points, while also, of course, being absolutely fucking hilarious.

"Now this whole R. Kelly shit... I think what we really need to be asking ourselves as a society is........how old is fifteen really?

No really, I'm serious, if I pulled my dick out and started pissing on people in the front row, that wouldn't be any decision at all, they could just get up and leave if they didn't like it. That's not some shit you got to think about...

When I was fifteen I was old enough to decide whether or not I wanted to be pissed on, that's all I'm saying."

Paraphrased of course.

__________________
"We each have a star, all we have to do is find it. Once you do, everyone who sees it will be blinded." - Earl Simmons