Discussion:
Why did they say we were overpopulated 50 years ago?
Add Reply
Dave P.
2020-05-08 16:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why did they say we were overpopulated 50 years ago,
when the world pop was half of what it is now?
d***@gmail.com
2020-05-08 16:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dave P

“Why did they say we were overpopulated 50 years ago, when the world pop was half of what it is now?”


You don’t know how disturbed I was In 1968, a required class was “Ecology”.

I had to regurgitate this nonsense to pass the class.

The old “ZPG” zero population growth ...It was just another green grab. That’s the ecologists who lie so you’ll surrender choices and fund leaches.

It’s crazy. It’s the same MO using those filthy plastic bags ...
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-08 17:52:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Duh, because in 1970, we were at 3.7 billion - more than twice the population of 1920!

In other words, growth was speeding up at an unprecedented rate - and hunger hadn't been conquered after centuries of civilization, so for some people, at least, it FELT logical to say that population growth couldn't continue, even slightly, without disaster.

But here's why growth looks MORE scary today:

1805: 1 billion (remember, it took thousands of years to reach that number)
1927: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2011: 7 billion

We will reach 7.8 billion in July, and, likely, 8 billion in Jan. 2023.

And while the U.N. keeps predicting we'll "only" be at 9.5 billion by 2050, they never offer real proof. Do the math, according to the pattern since 1987.

Btw, notice how when deer become overpopulated, no one talks about every deer is a "blessing" to its fellow deer? Or about the need to provide food to starving deer? No, they just get culled. Maybe COVID-19 is doing the same thing?


Lenona.
David Carson
2020-05-08 18:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Duh, because in 1970, we were at 3.7 billion - more than twice the population of 1920!
In other words, growth was speeding up at an unprecedented rate - and hunger hadn't been conquered after centuries of civilization, so for some people, at least, it FELT logical to say that population growth couldn't continue, even slightly, without disaster.
Food shortages in modern times are the result of bad governments making
bad policies. The Soviet Union is the textbook example. The way to
eliminate world hunger is to promote and spread democracy, capitalism, and
decentralized government.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But here's why growth looks MORE scary today: [snip]
Fear-mongering is unbecoming in discussions of public policy. It usually
precedes an appeal to surrender more of our freedoms and decision-making
powers to the same people who have been mismanaging things to date.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Btw, notice how when deer become overpopulated, no one talks about every deer is a "blessing" to its fellow deer? Or about the need to provide food to starving deer? No, they just get culled. Maybe COVID-19 is doing the same thing?
First off, U.S. governments decided about a century ago that the deer
population was declining too rapidly, and decided that was a problem it
had to fix. Now we supposedly have overpopulation.

Second, humans can survive and thrive in many different climates and
ecosystems; deer cannot. Humans can grow our own food; deer cannot. Humans
can store excess food for seasons of shortage; deer cannot. I could go on
and on all day explaining the differences between humans and deer with
regard to the food supply. Bottom line: humans aren't deer.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-08 19:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You skipped over what I said. We, the humans, don't feed starving deer, as a rule, because it wouldn't solve the problem. Unless there are too FEW of them.


Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-08 20:37:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Duh, because in 1970, we were at 3.7 billion - more than twice the population of 1920!
In other words, growth was speeding up at an unprecedented rate - and hunger hadn't been conquered after centuries of civilization, so for some people, at least, it FELT logical to say that population growth couldn't continue, even slightly, without disaster.
1805: 1 billion (remember, it took thousands of years to reach that number)
1927: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2011: 7 billion
We will reach 7.8 billion in July, and, likely, 8 billion in Jan. 2023.
And while the U.N. keeps predicting we'll "only" be at 9.5 billion by 2050, they never offer real proof. Do the math, according to the pattern since 1987.
Btw, notice how when deer become overpopulated, no one talks about every deer
is a "blessing" to its fellow deer? Or about the need to provide food to
starving deer? No, they just get culled. Maybe COVID-19 is doing the same
thing?
COVID-19 has killed less than 1/28,000th of the world's population.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
RH Draney
2020-05-08 21:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Btw, notice how when deer become overpopulated, no one talks about every deer
is a "blessing" to its fellow deer? Or about the need to provide food to
starving deer? No, they just get culled. Maybe COVID-19 is doing the same
thing?
COVID-19 has killed less than 1/28,000th of the world's population.
What's more, it tends to kill mostly those who are already done
reproducing, so it's a truly ineffective way to rein in overpopulation....r
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-08 21:45:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I disagree, a bit.

After all, we've all heard of the necessity of nature's weeding out the sick and the old.

(Which reminds me of the Far Side cartoon featuring the two cheetahs.)

At any rate, any intelligent adult who's been under pressure from family and friends to breed (in part so as to create more taxpayers), should be able to figure out, if/when this is over, that there is now LESS need for a woman to have two or more babies, with fewer elderly or frail people for taxpayers to support.

So with any luck, more childfree people will have the nerve to say "mind your own business" to their loved ones, religious leaders, and politicians, and the lower-class childLESS people might say "you want babies? How about some tax incentives?"

On top of that, I saw at least one article that predicted that the birth rate in 2021 will not be any higher because of the quarantine, since the mood right now isn't that romantic. (Maybe there'll even be a lower birth rate?) One wag said that if there IS a baby boomlet, it will consist entirely of first-born children.


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-08 21:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, because this time (unlike in 1918), even adults who are high-school dropouts mostly respect the importance of basic hygiene, taking doctors seriously, and staying at home, even when only so as to protect the health of strangers.

In other words, a virus doesn't possess intelligence and doesn't know how to get around at least some tough precautions.

(During the flu epidemic, it had only been about thirty years since 1890, when ALL doctors finally started washing their hands religiously, so it took even longer for average adults and children to take the practice seriously. Also, I knew at least two highly educated people who became adults In the 1920s and 1930s, but who had never been taught to floss - so their dentists had to teach them. Which reminds me of how, circa 1980, it was not considered unusual or neglectful for parents not to teach their kids to wear bicycle helmets. Now, if only more young people would take the anti-smoking campaigns seriously...after all, you could say that second-hand smoke is contagious, sort of.)


Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-09 19:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(During the flu epidemic, it had only been about thirty years since 1890, when ALL doctors finally started washing their hands religiously, so it took even longer for average adults and children to take the practice seriously. Also, I knew at least two highly educated people who became adults In the 1920s and 1930s, but who had never been taught to floss - so their dentists had to teach them. Which reminds me of how, circa 1980, it was not considered unusual or neglectful for parents not to teach their kids to wear bicycle helmets. Now, if only more young people would take the anti-smoking campaigns seriously...after all, you could say that second-hand smoke is contagious, sort of.)
Lenona.
While I strongly favor helmets for MOTORcyclists,
I'd rather never ride a bicycle again than wear a
helmet while riding one.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-09 20:30:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Why is that?
Kenny McCormack
2020-05-10 05:46:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <r9709s$e03$***@reader2.panix.com>,
Louis Epstein <***@top.put.com> wrote:
...
Post by Louis Epstein
While I strongly favor helmets for MOTORcyclists,
I'd rather never ride a bicycle again than wear a
helmet while riding one.
Agreed. And, given that Louis and I don't agree on much, this is
significant.

As far as I can tell, they are making it illegal for kids (people under 16)
to ride w/o one. As long as it stays that way, I'm OK with it, but you
just know that, sooner or later, they're going to extend to include
everyone. It's just the way these things go. Industries always want to
extend their markets.

Note, BTW, that one of the popular memes these days is this idea that kids
brains aren't "fully formed" until about age 25. Eventually, this is going
to be used to justify/forgive juvenile crimes to a much later age than is
currently the norm. But, that aside, it seems to me that if they want to
use this meme as justification for underage bicycle helmet laws, then,
that's OK with me, as long as they don't (eventually) extend it to adults.
--
Kenny, I'll ask you to stop using quotes of mine as taglines.

- Rick C Hodgin -
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-10 06:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That reminds me. Why is it that, in the 19th century, parents could order kids and teens to do all sorts of hard labor and hire them out and so on, but young men didn't even have the right to LEAVE their parents' home permanently, without permission, until age 21 - or even VOTE until then? What sense did that make? To put it another way, if the parents could treat a son like a slave, why couldn't they also throw him out before 21 as well, if they wanted? (I'm assuming they couldn't.)


Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-11 01:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
That reminds me. Why is it that, in the 19th century, parents could order kids and teens to do all sorts of hard labor and hire them out and so on, but young men didn't even have the right to LEAVE their parents' home permanently, without permission, until age 21 - or even VOTE until then? What sense did that make? To put it another way, if the parents could treat a son like a slave, why couldn't they also throw him out before 21 as well, if they wanted? (I'm assuming they couldn't.)
Lenona.
I thought you regarded the Coogan Law as cause for complaint?
Do you want children to be exploited by their parents,or not?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-11 02:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I think the Coogan Law makes good sense - but I have the impression, at least, that it doesn't cover ALL the earnings a child earns in Hollywood - just part of them. So if the same law applies in Utah, and if the parents of the delinquent kid there wanted to accept the advertising offers (I doubt I would), at the very least, I'd hope they'd punish the kid by taking as much of his earnings as they're legally allowed to take - and maybe not allowing him to spend any of the rest until he left home for good.

And I just think that if parents were going to make kids work so hard, back in the 19th century ("Farmer Boy" is likely a good example), it would have been only fair for young people to be allowed to leave home, legally, as soon as they could support themselves, IF they wished. However, I suppose that in an era when not graduating from high school was not considered a big deal for half the population, it made sense for the voting age to be 21. (If the marriage age had been the same, it could easily have greatly reduced many maternal deaths.)


Lenona.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-11 15:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I think the Coogan Law makes good sense - but I have the impression, at least,
that it doesn't cover ALL the earnings a child earns in Hollywood - just part
of them. So if the same law applies in Utah, and if the parents of the
delinquent kid there wanted to accept the advertising offers (I doubt I would),
at the very least, I'd hope they'd punish the kid by taking as much of his
earnings as they're legally allowed to take - and maybe not allowing him to
spend any of the rest until he left home for good.
They'd be his trustees,I expect.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
And I just think that if parents were going to make kids work so hard, back in
the 19th century ("Farmer Boy" is likely a good example), it would have been
only fair for young people to be allowed to leave home, legally, as soon as
they could support themselves, IF they wished. However, I suppose that in an
era when not graduating from high school was not considered a big deal for half
the population, it made sense for the voting age to be 21. (If the marriage age
had been the same, it could easily have greatly reduced many maternal deaths.)
Lenona.
I am old enough to remember when you could drink alcohol at 18 and
vote at 21 rather than the reverse,though by the time I was 18 I could vote.

The history of the age of consent and of marriage in the USA has been one of
relentless upward pressure,for all that alarmists are trying to say the
degenerates are going to lower it.Get too extreme about "child marriage"
and all you're doing is taking rights away from young lovers...the abuses
they complain about are what the judicial discretion they are trying to
abolish is there to take care of.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-11 18:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Get too extreme about "child marriage"
and all you're doing is taking rights away from young lovers

And what is so wrong with that, when raising the marriage age just might put a slight dent in the divorce rate? There's a reason that no one recommends that you marry your high school sweetheart anymore. Most people over 21 shudder at the thought.

And again, giving birth is a lot more dangerous for a teenager than it is for a woman in her 20s.

While it could easily be true that 18-year-olds today are far less mentally mature than they were in the 19th century or even as late as the 1950s (maybe), a big reason they were forced to grow up in a hurry was that college wasn't an option for most of them. So parents had to order them to learn a trade and get married ASAP - and girls had to be mentally prepared, not just for marriage and early motherhood, but for the possibility that disaster could strike - like TB or dozens of other diseases or accidents - and they'd have to support their families. (Even if their parents neglected to spell that part out.)

Whereas today, college is often mandatory for women if they hope to lead the middle-class lifestyle, with or without a spouse - and often for men as well, so book learning has to be taken far more seriously, even before high school. Plus, even for married couples, having babies is no longer something that "just happens," they have the option of planning and choosing, and they're EXPECTED to take their time in planning, in part since everyone has to worry about more and more jobs getting lost to automation, in the distant future. So, many choose not to have children at all - and those who do still feel the need to get out of debt first, which can take until age 30.

With all that in mind, it should be no wonder that nowadays, to "settle down young" means to get married just before age 25 and not at the end of high school or even earlier.

I will, however, admit that there are two big benefits to marrying before either of you is 25:

1. You and your spouse are less likely to have herpes.

2. You're less likely to find yourself in a stepfamily marriage. (That type is more likely to result in divorce.)
Post by Louis Epstein
...the abuses
they complain about are what the judicial discretion they are trying to
abolish is there to take care of.


If by "abuses," you mean parents who are forcing their daughters to marry much older men (when the girls aren't even pregnant), I think we should remember that we wouldn't allow "judicial discretion" if we were talking about 15-year-old boys whose parents were trying to push them into the military - or boys who WANTED to join the military. What's the difference?


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-11 19:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And again, giving birth is a lot more dangerous for a teenager than it is for a woman in her 20s.


Forgot to say - it's a lot more dangerous for the baby, too. It's more likely to be premature, which can lead to SIDS.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-11 19:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh, and from the pen of Fran Lebowitz ("Tips for Teens"):

"If you reside in a state where you attain your legal majority while still in your teens, pretend that you don't. There isn't an adult alive who would want to be contractually bound by a decision he came to at the age of 19."
Louis Epstein
2020-05-12 01:06:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"If you reside in a state where you attain your legal majority while still in your teens, pretend that you don't. There isn't an adult alive who would want to be contractually bound by a decision he came to at the age of 19."
Sometimes teens live with parents they need to get away from ASAP.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-12 01:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
And again, giving birth is a lot more dangerous for a teenager than it is for a woman in her 20s.
Forgot to say - it's a lot more dangerous for the baby, too. It's more likely
to be premature, which can lead to SIDS.
I expect prenatal care plays a role in outcomes.
Likelier to be better in a situation where there's family support.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-12 01:03:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
Get too extreme about "child marriage"
and all you're doing is taking rights away from young lovers
And what is so wrong with that, when raising the marriage age just might put a slight dent in the divorce rate? There's a reason that no one recommends that you marry your high school sweetheart anymore. Most people over 21 shudder at the thought.
And again, giving birth is a lot more dangerous for a teenager than it is for a woman in her 20s.
While it could easily be true that 18-year-olds today are far less mentally mature than they were in the 19th century or even as late as the 1950s (maybe), a big reason they were forced to grow up in a hurry was that college wasn't an option for most of them. So parents had to order them to learn a trade and get married ASAP - and girls had to be mentally prepared, not just for marriage and early motherhood, but for the possibility that disaster could strike - like TB or dozens of other diseases or accidents - and they'd have to support their families. (Even if their parents neglected to spell that part out.)
Whereas today, college is often mandatory for women if they hope to lead the middle-class lifestyle, with or without a spouse - and often for men as well, so book learning has to be taken far more seriously, even before high school. Plus, even for married couples, having babies is no longer something that "just happens," they have the option of planning and choosing, and they're EXPECTED to take their time in planning, in part since everyone has to worry about more and more jobs getting lost to automation, in the distant future. So, many choose not to have children at all - and those who do still feel the need to get out of debt first, which can take until age 30.
With all that in mind, it should be no wonder that nowadays, to "settle down young" means to get married just before age 25 and not at the end of high school or even earlier.
1. You and your spouse are less likely to have herpes.
2. You're less likely to find yourself in a stepfamily marriage. (That type is more likely to result in divorce.)
Post by Louis Epstein
...the abuses
they complain about are what the judicial discretion they are trying to
abolish is there to take care of.
If by "abuses," you mean parents who are forcing their daughters to marry much
older men (when the girls aren't even pregnant), I think we should remember
that we wouldn't allow "judicial discretion" if we were talking about
15-year-old boys whose parents were trying to push them into the military - or
boys who WANTED to join the military. What's the difference?
If your parents say yes,you can join the military at 17.
Which is and should be different from 15.
Post by Louis Epstein
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 02:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, and the girls pushed into marriage ARE often 15 or younger.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-12 03:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Yes, and the girls pushed into marriage ARE often 15 or younger.
Which the existing laws already don't allow in most places,
and judicial discretion,properly exercised,would stop their
being "pushed".

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 02:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not to mention that one doesn't hear much - if at all - about teen boys demanding that their parents let them join the military early, OR girls that age demanding permission to marry if they don't already have the right in that state and the parents are reluctant.

Maybe that's because teens know there's not much point in getting married if the couple can't even afford to get their own place - and even if they can and then they break up, getting a divorce would be an expensive hassle, and of course they don't want to be restricted due to lack of funds. (Which the girl certainly WOULD be, if her parents are pushing her to marry a much older man who controls all the money.) On top of that, one hears more and more these days about young men who are not only afraid of marriage, they're even afraid of sex, as in "what if the condom breaks?" (Not that I blame them.) So boys and girls alike should have their right to say NO to their parents protected, much in the same way that, by law, parents cannot order their preteens to run down to the corner store and buy liquor for their parents. (They could in Germany, decades ago, but I don't know if they still can.)


Lenona.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-12 02:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that one doesn't hear much - if at all - about teen boys
demanding that their parents let them join the military early, OR girls
that age demanding permission to marry if they don't already have the
right in that state and the parents are reluctant.
My dad was 16, lied about his age and forged a signature, enlisting in
WWII. It was pretty common, actually, and recruiters didn't question
things too hard.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
. . .
Louis Epstein
2020-05-12 03:28:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Not to mention that one doesn't hear much - if at all - about teen boys demanding that their parents let them join the military early, OR girls that age demanding permission to marry if they don't already have the right in that state and the parents are reluctant.
Maybe that's because teens know there's not much point in getting married if
the couple can't even afford to get their own place - and even if they can and
then they break up, getting a divorce would be an expensive hassle, and of
course they don't want to be restricted due to lack of funds. (Which the girl
certainly WOULD be, if her parents are pushing her to marry a much older man
who controls all the money.) On top of that, one hears more and more these
days about young men who are not only afraid of marriage, they're even afraid
of sex, as in "what if the condom breaks?" (Not that I blame them.) So boys
and girls alike should have their right to say NO to their parents protected,
But the answer is not to pass laws that eliminate all possibility,
no matter what the circumstances,of their ever being allowed to say
yes to a marriage,which is what those who whine the loudest about
"banning child marriage" demand.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
much in the same way that, by law, parents cannot order their preteens to run
down to the corner store and buy liquor for their parents. (They could in
Germany, decades ago, but I don't know if they still can.)
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 06:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
OK, you're right that the majority of states do not allow girls 15 and under to marry, period. (It was shocking to see the few that don't have ANY minimum age limit, with parental consent.)

I still can't believe that anyone would try to argue that the "pros" of legal child marriage outweigh the cons. Even if the only con that one is considering is the dangers of teen pregnancy. Even when the female patient is from a rich family, no doctor is going to encourage her to start a family in her teens. I'd say protecting her life should come first - and, again, most teens have the sense not to WANT early marriage in the first place.

In a similar vein, only a minority of states allow first cousins to marry when the woman is youngish, even though most of those marriages are between adults who presumably know what they're doing. I'd say preventing teen marriage is even more important.


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 06:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
(It was shocking to see the few that don't have ANY minimum age limit, with parental consent.)


Ten states, to be exact. One was California.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-12 08:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(It was shocking to see the few that don't have ANY minimum age limit,
with parental consent.)
Ten states, to be exact. One was California.
If a problem isn't known to exist, why does there have to be a law?
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 15:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Different example:

According to Texas family lawyer Robert Franklin, paternity fraud is practically legal in the US. This seems to back him up:

"While paternity fraud isn't a crime, a man can take civil action against a woman to seek reimbursement of his child support. ... If a man has not only financially supported a child but acted as their father, he may not only be denied reimbursement but be ordered to continue support payments. Jan 3, 2019."

On top of that, a lot of people don't consider paternity fraud to be a problem, in part because a lot of the men who've had their money stolen do not press charges, for one reason or another. (Darned few of those men get reimbursed, after all.)

But, no matter how poor a mother might be, if she robs a bank, THAT is always a felony. Even if she gets a slap on the wrist. So why shouldn't paternity fraud be a crime?


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 18:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To put it another way, even if bank robbery and paternity fraud were extremely rare (and anyone knows they aren't), the people who commit them still deserve to be treated as felons. It's the principle of the thing.

And last I heard, no parent of a teen or a preteen is eager to see any of the statutory rape laws loosened. (Let that be a lesson to any pathetic man or woman who whine that "it's too much woooorrrrrrk" to find out a younger person's age first.)


Lenona.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-12 19:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
To put it another way, even if bank robbery and paternity fraud were
extremely rare (and anyone knows they aren't), the people who commit
them still deserve to be treated as felons. It's the principle of the
thing.
And last I heard, no parent of a teen or a preteen is eager to see any
of the statutory rape laws loosened. (Let that be a lesson to any
pathetic man or woman who whine that "it's too much woooorrrrrrk" to
find out a younger person's age first.)
I'm calling bullshit. Let's ignore situations in which an adult looks for a
"date" at a place at which children hang out; that's a predator. If an
adult finds girls at a club in which management is lax about screening
them out, it's easy enough to mistake them for college girls. That's not
a predator. Let's be honest and acknowledge that the girls wanted to
be there.

There have been all sorts of prosecutions of high school boys over the
years for statutory rape. The two might be in the same grade, or one
grade apart. That's not a predator. We've heard of prosecutions because
the girl's father pressed charges against the boy, even though the two
were in a relationship.

We've also heard of cases in which BOTH girl and boy were under the age
of consent but only the boy was prosecuted.

Statutory rape is a bad, bad law. Of course prosecutors want it on the
books, arguing to legislators that it's a tool to use to prosecute
forcible rape in circumstances in which the victim won't cooperate and
testify as a witness for the prosecution.

Prosecutors always say that, but then we learn of cases in which
prosecutors failed to exercise prosecutorial discretion in the interest
of justice.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 21:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'll agree that, re statutory rape laws, the law is often very unfair to TEENAGE boys. (Especially in the two cases I've heard of where the boy was the victim of an adult female - and then had to pay child support!)

And no, I can't get worked up over those cases where they're only two years apart. Neither should others, IMO. (When there's a four-year difference, most people lose patience, and rightly so.)

But when it comes to cases involving strangers, the trouble there is that any adult could claim that the younger party lied about his/her age when nothing was actually said. That can't be allowed. Having to confirm someone's age is hardly a steep price to pay. Nowadays, after all, there's more than one way to find out. Hint: if someone claims to be over 16 but is not on Facebook (or can't drive), that's kind of suspicious. If an adult is repulsed at the thought of having to sleep only with those strangers who LOOK older than 20 - tough.


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 21:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thread from 2015 about a Michigan case and two teen strangers:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/06/25-years-on-the.html

Amy was on the side of the young man, but at least one man in the thread (Bob in Texas) disagreed with her. My other two favorite posters in the thread were Allison and Ppen. (I'm pretty sure Ppen is female - I miss her; she's been absent for at least a year. She's also one of the funnier and more vulgar ones, as you'll see if you click.) Lujlp (who's dyslexic) is a man who's often brilliant, but also hysterical and unhinged.


Allison:
"If she'd told the clerk at the convenience store she was 21 and they sold her beer and cigs, we'd recognize that the clerk was the at-fault party. They occasionally raid bars and smoke out underaged drinkers and even if they all have fake ID's, it's the bar that gets in trouble. I agree that this case punishment seems harsh, but it isn't inconsistent with our society's legal framework. The folks who want to charge the 14 year old for 'defrauding' this guy are a real piece of work. You likely don't have kids, don't remember being one and possibly have never met any."

And:
"Your argument in essence is that we don't need to protect kids from adults with regards to sex. Either you think young kids aren't harmed by it, or you feel that the harm they suffer is less important than the right of the adult to enjoy sex, regardless."


Me: How many of those men who scream for underage girls to be prosecuted for lying about their ages would feel the same way if THEY had young daughters?


Lenona.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-13 00:23:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/06/25-years-on-the.html
Amy was on the side of the young man, but at least one man in the thread
(Bob in Texas) disagreed with her. My other two favorite posters in the
thread were Allison and Ppen. (I'm pretty sure Ppen is female - I miss
her; she's been absent for at least a year. She's also one of the
funnier and more vulgar ones, as you'll see if you click.) Lujlp (who's
dyslexic) is a man who's often brilliant, but also hysterical and
unhinged.
"If she'd told the clerk at the convenience store she was 21 and they
sold her beer and cigs, we'd recognize that the clerk was the at-fault
party.
That's not what the law says. That's only if the store doesn't ask for
ID.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
They occasionally raid bars and smoke out underaged drinkers and
even if they all have fake ID's, it's the bar that gets in trouble. I
agree that this case punishment seems harsh, but it isn't inconsistent
with our society's legal framework. The folks who want to charge the 14
year old for 'defrauding' this guy are a real piece of work. You likely
don't have kids, don't remember being one and possibly have never met
any."
"Your argument in essence is that we don't need to protect kids from
adults with regards to sex. Either you think young kids aren't harmed by
it, or you feel that the harm they suffer is less important than the
right of the adult to enjoy sex, regardless."
Me: How many of those men who scream for underage girls to be prosecuted
for lying about their ages would feel the same way if THEY had young
daughters?
The ones who demand that their daughters remain virgins till after they
die?

But, yeah, you go back in time and tell your teenage self that sex is
bad for you and will have long-lasting ramifications and that you'll be
seeing a psychiatrist about it for the next several decades.

If the two teenage lovers are close in age, the boy probably won't
understand that he doesn't have to be too rough or force things to progress
because sex is expected even if neither is ready for it, and the girl
probably doesn't understand the she must not lie there like a doormat
not getting what she wants, not having her needs fulfilled. Teenagers
don't know anything. An older lover who is kind, caring, and gentle with
a younger lover is likely to give the kid a better experience than the
quick boink under the bleachers with a classmate.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-13 00:12:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I'll agree that, re statutory rape laws, the law is often very unfair to
TEENAGE boys. (Especially in the two cases I've heard of where the boy
was the victim of an adult female - and then had to pay child support!)
And no, I can't get worked up over those cases where they're only two
years apart. Neither should others, IMO.
It's still a criminal offense, and don't forget, subject to sex offender
registration.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(When there's a four-year difference, most people lose patience, and
rightly so.)
There's a world of difference if the age of consent is 18, the "victim"
is 17, and the "perpetrator" is 21, versus 13 and 17.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
But when it comes to cases involving strangers, the trouble there is
that any adult could claim that the younger party lied about his/her age
when nothing was actually said. That can't be allowed.
Even if the "victim" attended a party for adults? In any event, how will
the police prove who said what? In theory, statutory rape laws are violated
given the fact that the "victim" is a person under the age of consent,
even if she claimed to be older, hence the term "jailbait".
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Having to confirm someone's age is hardly a steep price to pay.
When they shoot pr0n, the "actors" provide birth certificates, copies of
which are filed with a lawyer. No one does that when meeting a stranger
for casual sex. That's a little extreme.

In any event, from a brief conversation, one should be able to tell a
high school girl from a college girl if one pays attention.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Nowadays, after all,
there's more than one way to find out. Hint: if someone claims to be
over 16 but is not on Facebook (or can't drive), that's kind of
suspicious. If an adult is repulsed at the thought of having to sleep
only with those strangers who LOOK older than 20 - tough.
In your hypothetical, you're talking about a minor age difference, like
four years, not a middle aged married man boinking the babysitter. The
reason the girls went to the club, making themselves up to look older,
is that teenage boys their own age haven't yet learned to be decent lovers.
They're also trying to grow up too quickly.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-12 19:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
According to Texas family lawyer Robert Franklin, paternity fraud is
"While paternity fraud isn't a crime, a man can take civil action
against a woman to seek reimbursement of his child support. ... If a man
has not only financially supported a child but acted as their father, he
may not only be denied reimbursement but be ordered to continue support
payments. Jan 3, 2019."
On top of that, a lot of people don't consider paternity fraud to be a
problem, in part because a lot of the men who've had their money stolen
do not press charges, for one reason or another. (Darned few of those
men get reimbursed, after all.)
But, no matter how poor a mother might be, if she robs a bank, THAT is
always a felony. Even if she gets a slap on the wrist. So why shouldn't
paternity fraud be a crime?
In this case, you've identified a problem with the "in the best interest
of the child" standard in which a court might award child support
against an adult who didn't participate in conceiving the child and may
have supported the child for a short period only.

In the other case, you were faulting legislators for failing to enact a
statute anticipating that parental consent for marriage required in
marriage law would be used by a handful of parents to arrange marriages
for their children, in some cases, selling their own children into white
slavery.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-12 21:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In the other case, you were faulting legislators for failing to enact a
statute anticipating that parental consent for marriage required in
marriage law would be used by a handful of parents to arrange marriages
for their children, in some cases, selling their own children into white
slavery


I don't really understand the idea of "parental consent" in these situations. Many would say that underage marriage is a violation of "the best interests of the child."

When it comes to something as serious as marriage, it seems to me that if you're legally too young to do it without parental permission, you're too young to do it, period. (And I would say the same thing about taking Driver's Ed, by the way. What most people don't realize is that the driving age was determined back when neither roads nor cars allowed for speeds over 30 miles an hour or so - AND parents didn't allow teens to waste costly gas just driving around for fun. Chances are the legal driving age would have been much higher if we'd had modern cars and highways a century ago.)


Lenona.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-05-13 00:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In the other case, you were faulting legislators for failing to enact
a statute anticipating that parental consent for marriage required in
marriage law would be used by a handful of parents to arrange marriages
for their children, in some cases, selling their own children into
white slavery
I don't really understand the idea of "parental consent" in these
situations. Many would say that underage marriage is a violation of "the
best interests of the child."
Well, yeah. The parents should go to prison.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
When it comes to something as serious as marriage, it seems to me that
if you're legally too young to do it without parental permission, you're
too young to do it, period.
Sometimes parents are truly awful human beings and the children are
bettern off emancipated, which is what getting married does.

Years ago, I remember reading about a teenage boy whose mother was a
drunk and whose father was a drunk and beat the children. He had part
time jobs during high school and carefully saved his money. As he
approached his 18th birthday, he found a cheap apartment and made
arrangements. The day he turned 18, he signed the lease and left home
forever. His father was infuriated but legally couldn't prevent it.
Unfortunately, things got worse for the younger brother.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
(And I would say the same thing about taking
Driver's Ed, by the way. What most people don't realize is that the
driving age was determined back when neither roads nor cars allowed for
speeds over 30 miles an hour or so - AND parents didn't allow teens to
waste costly gas just driving around for fun. Chances are the legal
driving age would have been much higher if we'd had modern cars and
highways a century ago.)
Nonsense. In rural areas, children operate the heavy machinery when they
are mature enough to do so, and they don't need a driver's license to
move the farm truck around the fields. The population is a lot ore urban
than it once was.

When I took Driver's Ed, they specifically asked who had "borrowed" his
father's car. Those kids were separated out from the rest of us as they
were the more advanced students.
Louis Epstein
2020-05-13 04:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
OK, you're right that the majority of states do not allow girls 15 and under to marry, period. (It was shocking to see the few that don't have ANY minimum age limit, with parental consent.)
I still can't believe that anyone would try to argue that the "pros" of legal
child marriage outweigh the cons.
It disturbs me that anyone treats a 17-year-old the same as a 5-year-old
in terms of marriageability.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Even if the only con that one is considering
is the dangers of teen pregnancy. Even when the female patient is from a rich
family, no doctor is going to encourage her to start a family in her teens. I'd
say protecting her life should come first - and, again, most teens have the
sense not to WANT early marriage in the first place.
But not all circumstances are the same.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
In a similar vein, only a minority of states allow first cousins to marry when
the woman is youngish, even though most of those marriages are between adults
who presumably know what they're doing. I'd say preventing teen marriage is
even more important.
Sometimes a marriage is the best way to escape a parent a teen's
life depends on escaping.

Again...laws that allow exceptions to exist are better laws than
those that are unblinkingly fanatical about the age limit...that's
all I'm saying.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Lenona.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Kenny McCormack
2020-05-13 04:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by l***@yahoo.com
OK, you're right that the majority of states do not allow girls 15
and under to marry, period. (It was shocking to see the few that don't
have ANY minimum age limit, with parental consent.)
I still can't believe that anyone would try to argue that the "pros"
of legal child marriage outweigh the cons.
It disturbs me that anyone treats a 17-year-old the same as a 5-year-old
in terms of marriageability.
Nowadays, they are pretty much equivalent.

Basically, anything under 30 is about the same.
--
BigBusiness types (aka, Republicans/Conservatives/Independents/Liberatarians/whatevers)
don't hate big government. They *love* big government as a means for them to get
rich, sucking off the public teat. What they don't like is *democracy* - you know,
like people actually having the right to vote and stuff like that.
Loading...