Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

That's fine but this is pretty extreme. There are incidents of brides being as young as 13 in the article. Doubt you can do that in US without becoming a media story.

That's fine but this is pretty extreme. There are incidents of brides being as young as 13 in the article. Doubt you can do that in US without becoming a media story.
Replies: Wheezer

I remember a girl who's parents married her off as an old-maid at the age of 13. The man they married her to was in his 40's. He kicked her out of his home at the age of 14 because she was too old. I found her (or was lead to her) on a beach at the age of 15. She was terrified of anyone in authority and would hide or run on sight.

I remember a girl who's parents married her off as an old-maid at the age of 13. The man they married her to was in his 40's. He kicked her out of his home at the age of 14 because she was too old. I found her (or was lead to her) on a beach at the age of 15. She was terrified of anyone in authority and would hide or run on sight.

In todays world torture to death is thought of as inhuman and immoral. I consider people like that guy and her parents as garbage that should be disposed of. Just kick them in the garbage disposal unit. There's nothing human about them.

Crazy part is that legally today I would be required to turn her over to the cops. Who would be required to hand her over to her parents.

I have never figured out how I managed to have her health checked out at a medical clinic without being either turned over to the cops or being charged for all of the tests.

Crazy part is that legally today I would be required to turn her over to the cops. Who would be required to hand her over to her parents.

Some time in the (distant?) future several of todays social rules and laws will be considered cruel and insane, just like we do today about some very old rules or laws. This example will definitely be one of them.

I have never figured out how I managed to have her health checked out at a medical clinic without being either turned over to the cops or being charged for all of the tests.

You helped a person in dire need despite the risks to you personally. You are a good person, thank you.

I had to do it if I ever wanted to look in a mirror again. The risks were only considered after she moved to a better location with a new ID (Illegal of course).

I have never figured out how I managed to have her health checked out at a medical clinic without being either turned over to the cops or being charged for all of the tests.

It is likely she had something to do with that by giving a good report to the medical staff. On the other hand, if she'd put blame on you while telling the medical staff her story, you'd have been perp walked out of the clinic.

Kudos for doing the right thing, but it was at high risk to your personal freedom and we'll being.

I think they traveled to another state and he was arrested and charged with statutory rape, since she was not 18 at the time they had sex with each other in that state.

That just shows how laws differ widely from one state to another. Its like there are no defaults outside of the national/federal laws which can override local laws.

In the article I read, I vaguely recall that the prosecutor was running for election and wanted to prove he was tough on crime.

Re-election is more likely since he would have to already be in the office to prosecute a case.

@REP
In the article I read, I vaguely recall that the prosecutor was running for election and wanted to prove he was tough on crime.

Re-election is more likely since he would have to already be in the office to prosecute a case.

He would still be an asswipe. Pardon my French.

He would still be an asswipe.

Very true.

ecause technically under Federal law, one issued here in Oklahoma SHOULD be honored in New York, but isn't.

And such a permit rejected legally in New York should be honored in Oklahoma, but isn't.

In 2034 the laws will be changed to allow that and others that will be relaxed for incest related marriages. Difficult to think of but that is in the future. It will be argued by lawmakers as being an, "UNGODLY ACT". however, a brother and sister will be allowed to marry, as same sex marriages are allowed to be held as ordained by law also.

I can see polygamy being legal by then, along with several other combinations. I cannot see brother sister being legal by then. I don't see father daughter/mother son either. First Gen incest may be a lower risk, but it is still a risk.

I can see polygamy being legal by then, along with several other combinations. I cannot see brother sister being legal by then. I don't see father daughter/mother son either. First Gen incest may be a lower risk, but it is still a risk.

I can see polygamy getting faorable Judicial rulings in the next decade or so. Speaking of, need to check the status of the challenge to Utah's law on the matter.

As to the others, maybe by the time I'm "one foot in the grave" which is likely to be decades away. I probably have another 40+ years ahead of me even without medical science pushing the horizon out even further.

The bigger thing that will hold back sibling incest, and/or parent/child incest from being legally recognized as Marriage is the psychology aspect of it, rather than the biology side.

Way too many ways for that to be abused. Which isn't to say things won't potentially "get weird"(by current sensibilities) in other ways before then.

The first cousin restrictions might fall in the next few decades, but I have doubt on that as well(from the political side, judicial action is another matter).

Biggest thing in play there is advancing medical sciences and genetic testing. If the cousins have an otherwise clean bill of genetic health that doesn't endanger the health of any potential children. It'll be hard to justify the prohibition outside of religious grounds, and "going religious" will likely kill it very promptly.

Really, the medical aspect of things is the more interesting one to consider going forward as "public health interests" which were used to make 1st Cousin relationships illegal, can be pointed at for other illnesses and whatnot.

Particularly when you add in the other layer of the Government being the one underwriting those healthcare expenses. From a dystopian perspective, I could see a new wrinkle eventually being added to sexual relations where ("reproductively viable") people with certain genetic markers are actively proscribed from having sex(children) with ("reproductively viable") people who have certain other markers, with "medical reasons" being the justification. Because we the people don't want to pay for the resulting medical bills that the actuaries predict to be the probable outcome.

The more interesting aspect of this would be some of the broader implications. Human Dwarfism being a prime example, medical issues are VERY common among their demographic, usually tied to their diminished stature.

So it becomes an interesting balancing act of enacting a law to say, prevent a child being born with Leukemia or Cystic Fibrosis that doesn't also end up turning into a eugenics program that essentially results in the elimination of the "Little People" within a few generations.

From a dystopian perspective, I could see a new wrinkle eventually being added to sexual relations where ("reproductively viable") people with certain genetic markers are actively proscribed from having sex(children) with ("reproductively viable") people who have certain other markers, with "medical reasons" being the justification. Because we the people don't want to pay for the resulting medical bills that the actuaries predict to be the probable outcome.

Laws won't be the first to enforce genetic testing or even demand genetic compatibility to 'allow' children. The medical insurance companies will force genetic testing that proves compatibility before they allow children to be included on the insurance coverage.

Laws won't be the first to enforce genetic testing or even demand genetic compatibility to 'allow' children. The medical insurance companies will force genetic testing that proves compatibility before they allow children to be included on the insurance coverage.

In what country? ACA is still the law of the land in the USA and unlikely to go away, insurance companies cannot deny coverage for any reason besides non-payment of fees, and fraud.

Most of the rest of the 1st world nations have nationalized health-care systems so they too have a mandate to provide coverage for everybody.

So in what (1st World) Nation would insurance companies currently be even remotely close to being able to compel genetic testing before getting coverage?

More likely to be done as an austerity(cost-saving) measure under force of law at this point. Rather than denial of service, it'll come with criminal penalties if you fail to comply.

In what country? ACA is still the law of the land in the USA and unlikely to go away, insurance companies cannot deny coverage for any reason besides non-payment of fees, and fraud.

You're right but if it changes the US will probably be the very first because it's the capitalistic thing to do.

You're right but if it changes the US will probably be the very first because it's the capitalistic thing to do.

Not going to disagree. I could certainly see the US moving in that direction in another 10 to 20 years depending on a few factors, and be one of the first ones there. That timeline mostly varies depending on which party gets the Presidency in 2020, ironically the Dems get the US there more quickly(not that they'd be deliberately trying to do that), but all roads ultimately lead there.

Although I'm also inclined to think that "popular thought" on the matter of genetic screening with regards to pregnancies 150 years from now is going to be that NOT screening for that kind of thing(likely inheritable genetic disorders) and "taking appropriate measures" prior to conception is going to be considered completely barbaric. (And potentially likely to bring up child abuse/child endangerment charges, among others, even before the pregnancy is over)

I think the jury is likely to be out on abortion for another century or more, so not going to call on the likely "future view" of aborting a pregnancy with a known disorder. Ultimately I think pro-life will (mostly) win that one, but only in the context of reliable birth control becoming the norm and essentially standard practice. So the probability of a "unscreened pregnancy" would be near zero to start with.

Although I'm also inclined to think that "popular thought" on the matter of genetic screening with regards to pregnancies 150 years from now is going to be that NOT screening for that kind of thing(likely inheritable genetic disorders) and "taking appropriate measures" prior to conception is going to be considered completely barbaric. (And potentially likely to bring up child abuse/child endangerment charges, among others, even before the pregnancy is over)

A change in social perception like you stated is even more likely then insurance companies forcing it. Maybe they will follow up with such policies after social changes. It will also be the best way to get rid of avoidable birth defects. In a few years genetic manipulation can solve all birth defect problems and hopefully become socially accepted. The biggest fight will be against the stupid religious.

150 years from now, I suspect religious beliefs will have even far less impact on the actions of the American people.

I hope sincerely that you are right but what I see in current American politics is that it is heavily influenced by christian religion. It's a sad fact that without support from the religious groups you have no chance to win an election. That's scary.

...because Buddha plugged it on his youtube channel ;)

Siddhartha has a u-tube channel? I did not know that.

Oddly enough, the developed world seems to be becoming more religious rather than less, switching from orthodox religions to worshipping pseudo-science and reality TV media personalities.

Depends on the portion of the world in question. Islam is likely to become a major Political force in more than a few 1st world nations in Europe over the next several decades.

In my opinion, a 150 years ago the Christian religion played a major part in the lives of most Americans, and elsewhere. The various churches' beliefs controlled the lives of most people; which in turn resulted in the laws against abortion.

It played less of a role than you'd think. Historically speaking, particularly in regards to 19th Century America. While they identified as Christian, they weren't particularly devout. It's been awhile since I saw the numbers but it was something on the order of 80% of Americans had no affiliation with any particular sect or denomination. Many of them could go years between occasions where they would set foot in a church.

The power the Religious Right enjoyed in the latter part of the 20th Century had a LOT to do with anti-communist propaganda efforts among other things. The Communists were atheists, so therefore it was in the best interests of all to "play up" the role of Christianity in the life of Americans throughout its history.

It was important, I think it still IS important. But they went overboard and revised history in order to fit the needs of an agenda, which opened the door to many others with agendas of their own.

I mean seriously, think back to American thinking in the early 1800's in particular, after having just won their freedom from the United Kingdom and the Church of England. Or all of the 19th Century European immigrants, fleeing oppression from either the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England. These were not people who were particular keen on the idea of organized religion and generally preferred to approach it on their own or communally.

The KKK actually is a poster child for both ends of this. While they claimed a "christian right" to oppress the blacks("Mark of Cain," and what not). They were also simultaneously deeply suspicious of, and highly antagonistic towards Catholics because of the regard they held the Pope in. Mormons likewise had problems with the KKK (v1) because they have a Pope Equivalent, and so on and so forth.

History isn't always what it appears to be, and almost certainly isn't what popular media(from any decade) often attempts to portray it as.

That may be true, but the religious beliefs of the period had a major effect on how they conducted themselves. During that period, and to a lesser extent today, you didn't have to be a member of a church to be affected by the churches' beliefs.

The religious beliefs of the era shaped and informed the social mores and norms for that era. As it still had some nominal influence on "Socially Normal" people did as society expected.

Much like people today still do as society, or more specifically, their social circle, expects of them. The only thing that changed is who or what the authority figure is in regards to defining "normal" for that social grouping.

The Modern era has also made it easier for people to find new/other/alternative social circles to mix and mingle in.

Which is perhaps the single biggest factor in play today versus even 30 years ago. The "social cost" of being ostracized socially was MUCH higher, so there was much more pressure to conform, or lose your ability to interact significantly with others.

Now thanks to wonders of technology, finding a social circle that is willing to interact with you, or even agrees with you, is just a few clicks and web searches away. Basically social ostracism has lost much of its power.

At least until the thought police manage to lock down the search engines and social media platforms so as to make it as difficult as possible to socially network with others who hold "unapproved" points of view.

The current taboo has to do with the high risk for physical & mental problems for any children born to siblings.

Actually, the taboo developed long before the scientific method and knowledge of genetics.

Unless there are known hereditary diseases in the family line, the risk with first generation incest is barely measurable.

Animal breeders do this all the time under controlled conditions.

You don't get significant genetic risk unless/until the incest is repeated recursively over several generations.

Isn't that pretty much what we've seen with the British Royal family?

Actually pretty much all the royal families of Europe were related, enough that they had inbreeding problems for centuries, even when trading daughters between royal houses.

However, that's less of a problem for the current British royal family. Diana's sons have displayed some sense.

Prince William married a Brit, but she wasn't nobility, so likely no prior close ties to the royal family.

Prince Harry married an American actress.

sibling incest causes more birth defects in the population at large than non-incestuous couplings.

The increase is negligible to the point of being barely measurable unless repeated over multiple generations.

Interestingly, unrelated persons with known genetic family histories for hereditary diseases face no social taboos or laws against marriage, even though it is almost guaranteed their children will suffer.

So true. It makes you wonder why there is a law against incest but no law that forces/encourages a simple test before starting with children.

Interestingly, unrelated persons with known genetic family histories for hereditary diseases face no social taboos or laws against marriage, even though it is almost guaranteed their children will suffer.

Early 20th century Eugenics movement tried and failed to establish both taboos and laws on the subject.

Early 20th century Eugenics movement tried and failed to establish both taboos and laws on the subject.

Because most of them were racist asshats as well, and in the aftermath of the holocaust anything that even slightly smelled like a racial supremacy agenda item fell out of favor with a vengeance.

The best some of the eugenicists managed was to create a new panic over resource scarcity and overpopulation and start getting bankrolled for targeted efforts at population control through "family planning" for "highly impoverished populations" that were almost exclusively non-white. Joe Sixpack wasn't their concern.

Because most of them were racist asshats as well, and in the aftermath of the holocaust anything that even slightly smelled like a racial supremacy agenda item fell out of favor with a vengeance.

A lot of them were racist, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them asshats. They were a product of their environment, not really knowing any better.

In my mind, an asshat racist is one that was taught better, but still ends up judging a person by their race.

Then there were eugenics supporters who didn't factor in race. Disabilities were more their concern. Such people included all racial profiles btw.

On another note, the worst attack on specific genes for the 20th century was not the nazis. The worst was the two-one child policy of China which amounted to state sanction gendercide. Dress it up, spin it around the word smithing table, the end results were still millions of Chinese baby girls dead over the lifetime of mao's two-one child policy.

The irony there was prior to the first two child policy (1970), mao encouraged population growth.

The first step was the two child policy. If the first child was a girl, they were allowed to try again for a boy. That didn't work out so they went to one child policy.

As jacked up as that is, it was made worse by the west turning a mostly blind eye to it instead of asking where the extra baby girls went. Over decades, they were sold, dropped in rivers, outright butchered, stacked in orphanages to starve to death, ad nauseam.

Here again is where wikipedia fails. The most you'll find there is a glossed over version of history. You'll have to find a used dead tree store to get the actual history. Search for population control or one child policy. Don't bother reading it, just tab over and look at the revision history. The vast majority of what you find online for them has already been edited to paint a softer more favorable picture.

Margaret Sanger told them at the KKK rally that she was working on the solution for the Negro problem.

80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

Rev. Jesse Jackson used to call abortion genocide, until he ran for President as a Dem. in 1984 and was told to shut up about it if he wanted any party money. At least one in four black pregnancies are terminated. Round up and kill 25% of all black children and it would be decried as a crime against humanity on the level of the Holocaust, prevent them from being born and it's all good.

80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
...
Round up and kill 25% of all black children and it would be decried as a crime against humanity on the level of the Holocaust, prevent them from being born and it's all good.

That's a very one-sided and short sighted statement. I dare you to do some research on teen pregnancies, rape pregnancies, single mother percentages, #children and the income to support them and compare them between different types of neighborhoods.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

That's a very one-sided and short sighted statement. I dare you to do some research on teen pregnancies, rape pregnancies, single mother percentages, #children and the income to support them and compare them between different types of neighborhoods.

Yes, most affluent neighborhoods are White, or are treated as such by the various advocacy groups. (Sucks to be Jewish, or Asian)

But that doesn't mean all whites are affluent. Of course, this gets into the devil and the details. :)

Most poor whites live in predominately rural areas, which means they tend to be dispersed across a very wide geographical area. And thinks to Jim Crow laws, Blacks tended to
1) Find safety in numbers,
and
2) Go to where there were lots of (unskilled) jobs available, which in the Early-mid 20th century was the major cities as the Farms continued to mechanize thus reducing the need for farm labor.

Which often resulted in concentrating them into urban areas which are far easier to provide services to. As placing a clinic that had 10,000 people within 4 miles of it that have use for it makes more sense than placing that clinic somewhere that has 10,000 people within 40 miles of it who have need for it. So because Joe Redneck lives 40 miles into the sticks, he's not getting family planning services.

I think you'd find, if you drill into the numbers, things are actually much worse with regards to "Joe Redneck" and his GF than they now are for many Blacks. The challenge with "Joe Redneck" however, is that he is mixed in with the statistics about the rest of the general (White) population.

Prevent them from being conceived is even better.

Let's see. I assume without anything done the rate of pregnancies would be the same for all races. Is there any statistical data about birth rates for different ethnicies and different social levels (e.g. white middle class vs. poor white trash)?

I guess the big difference is money. With enough money the females can use birth control like the pill or an IUD or an implant to prevent pregnancy. Condoms are no solution because they need active cooperation of the male partner and the failure rate is much too high.

HM.

Yes, wealth is the best form of birth control in existence.

But the point I was making is that by definition minority means few in numbers so having the majority of Planned Parenthood in their neighborhoods seems targeted. Wouldn't there be more poor whites as a percentage?

Not exactly. minority means the size of the group is smaller than the size of the group that makes up the majority.

Close, a minority means one of two things.

1) Is on the side with less than 50% support. (2016 Presidential election comes to mind, no candidate achieved even 49% of the popular vote--there was no "popular majority" winner in 2016, or in 2000 for that matter)

2) A minority can simply be outnumbered in some way.

Which is where "majority" often gets incorrectly used as a synonym for "plurality" which would be the largest minority.

For example: Hillary Clinton won a Plurality of the Popular vote in 2016, but at less than 49% of the popular vote, failed to win a majority. However, plenty of people will be happy to tell you she won a majority in the popular vote in 2016. Same thing for Al Gore in 2000, many people will claim he won a popular majority in 2000, he did not, he had a plurality.

Everybody who voted for President in either 2000 and/or in 2016 voted for a candidate who received a minority of the popular vote.

However, Trump voters were in a minority in relation to Hillary voters, as Bush voters were in a minority in relation to Gore voters. But it also didn't change the fact that both Hillary and Gore voters were in the minority in relation to everybody else.

Of Note: Bill Clinton also was a "Popular Minority(Plurality) President" in BOTH 1992 against George Bush(41) and Ross Perot having won with only 43% of the popular vote. And again in 1996 against Bob Dole (and Ross Perot, and others), where Bill Clinton won 1996 with 49.2% of the vote.

You have to go back to 1968 and Nixon's first successful Presidential election, in a 3 way race, to find another President get elected with less than 50% of the vote. But they aren't alone.

1912 Woodrow Wilson wins with 41.8% of the vote in a 4 way race. (Theodore Roosevelt and his former VP, W. H. Taft had over 50% of the popular vote between them)

1916 Woodrow Wilson wins re-election with 49.2% of the popular vote.

1948 Harry Truman wins re-election(after finishing FDR's third term) with 49.6% of the popular vote in a 3 way race, featuring Dewey and the then Governor Strom Thurmond.

1960 JFK wins election with 49.72% of the popular vote.

1968 Tricky Dick wins with 43.4% of the popular vote and as mentioned previously, this was a 3 way race.

2004 through 2012 all had popular majority election results. As did 1972 through 1988, 1964, 1952 and 1956, 1920 through 1944, and 1896 through 1908.

Yes, wealth is the best form of birth control in existence.

It sucks then. Been a while since I looked at the numbers, but the pregnancy rates for people in the $100K+/year income bracket were just as high, or even higher, than the cohort in the under $25k/year.

It was people in the income brackets in between who stopped having children in numbers on average.

That means there are 3 out of 4 chances (75%) that the recessive gene will be passed to their offspring.

On the other hand, those would be the same odds as for any two unrelated individuals.

Can you back up this claim with some case studies?

A case study on humans, no. However, like I said, it's something animal breeders do on a regular basis, breeding siblings, or even parent/child.

Decent humans do not do that with their children.

At least after the child is born. There are a number of cases where, after certain genetic defects were detected in prenatal testing, the pregnancy would end in abortion.

severely handicapped

Who decides that? You? Corrupted government's? Or shall we trust ideological scientists?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

The increase is negligible to the point of being barely measurable unless repeated over multiple generations.

Can you back up this claim with some case studies? Since sibling couples having babies are such a tiny part of the overall population, I can see that a percent increase would be negligible for the population at large, but that just is not the case for the sibling couple. Perhaps that word 'negligible' does not mean what you think it means. Just to clarify, I'm discussing actual real-world living couples and not SOL stories. Of course there is negligible risk on SOL.

I can see a little of both. Up into the early 20th Century, even in the United States, 1st Cousin Marriages were very common. "Endogamy"(basically where everybody is related to everybody else, often more than one way, within the range of 1st to 4th cousin) was also very common in many areas during the 19th Century and earlier, and still impacts many small isolated areas to this day.

Particularly where you're dealing with an Endogamy scenario, brother/sister incest is likely to start turning out with bad results. European nobility essentially trapped themselves into an Endogamy scenario by greatly limiting the size of the pool that they would mix within and not provisioning for ""new blood" to enter the mix. That their numbers started to decline sharply in the 19th Century due to political factors just further compounded their problems as the available candidate pool began to shrink on them.

But moving into a present day context, generally speaking, for someone who

1) Has 4+ generations of a family tree that doesn't loop back on itself.
and
2) Has no family history of genetic disorders.

Should have a "reasonably low" risk factor about on par with the general population. In some isolated cases, it may be lower. (Just because there are number of people who DO have a history of genetic disorders presenting in the past 4 generations)

But the point also stands that there is the whole thing about a recessive gene "winning the lottery" and being passed on to both siblings, and both of those siblings then passing that recessive gene on to their child. Except that also is something of a risk factor in the general population as well, it happens on a regular basis all the time.

This thread has wandered way off topic but here is a link to something actually about US child brides.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/feb/06/it-put-an-end-to-my-childhood-the-hidden-scandal-of-us-child-marriage
For some statistics on the subject: http://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-shocking-statistics/ (the article links to it)

Florida now has a law against this, it was passed around 7 weeks after the article above was published due to the campaign reported on in that article.

I have a hard time viewing a teenager who is well into adolescence as a child.

Inexperienced? Definitely.

Likely to be woefully unprepared for the wider world despite however street smart they think they are? Sure.

Being a "high risk" group for a large number of medical issues? Sure.

A Child? Nope. If anything, treating them as children is demeaning, and unnatural, and potentially detrimental to both them and many adults as well, for reasons that have been discussed previously.

That isn't to say they should be classified as adults, as they're not quite that either. This is a case where I'd like to smack around some (christian) moral crusaders from about 130 years ago around on more than a few items. Their solution, quite frankly, sucked.

But when it comes to dealing with the "and younger" set, certainly feel free to stick to the path they set.

When it comes to the older set however, there really, desperately needs to be another legal category, or two or three, created for them, and society needs to get that "child" nonsense out of its system.

If a future Multi-Billionaire can drop out of Junior High School in the 1930's, and begin a business enterprise involving chickens he subsequently turns into an agribusiness worth Billions over the course of 50-some odd years, obviously teenagers are capable of quite a lot. If they're allowed to do so.

The digital era likewise has its legions of teenage millionaires to point at. So it isn't like this is a fluke. They need guidance, and protection from predators and leeches alike. They don't need to be locked in a proverbial padded room with a condescending instruction to "wait until you're older."

The "child marriages" such as they are(or are not involving children), ARE predatory, and should be addressed. The complicating factor here is international law and whatever conventions the various nations involved may be party to. In which case, State Law is going to take a back seat to Federal Law/Treaty. Where practiced within the United States under legal restrictions, it either is with judicial oversight, parental involvement, and/or the "child" being at such an age they really should have a decent idea of what they're getting into.

Sorry, but I have a hard time freaking out over a 16YO getting married. Yes, there are many concerns with respect to someone that age being involved in a Marriage, but at the same time, its an issue that isn't likely to be easily addressed for a multitude of reasons. Chief among them being the (exploitative) "religious practice" aspect as it pertains to the US Constitution.

So on one hand I'd love to see action taken to curb it, but on the other hand, I have concerns about further implications beyond that. Particularly when it comes to other agendas that might be in play, now or in the future once the precedent is set. My preference in the 16YO Scenario is to empower the 16YO with options so they can extract themselves from the exploitative situation, if that is what it really is. Rather than impose a blanket ban on something simply because it makes people squeamish.

No two people of any age are alike. There are advanced mature 14 year olds, and 44 year olds that are more like nine year olds.

When viewed through the lens of government, the easy answer is to focus on the least common denominator. Not all teens will be mature enough for various responsibilities, so for the purposes of establishing what age is an 'adult', they throw a blanket over all of them that supposedly covers the majority. Add to that 'moral/religious' considerations, we then end up with a convoluted mess.

When viewed through the lens of government, the easy answer is to focus on the least common denominator. Not all teens will be mature enough for various responsibilities, so for the purposes of establishing what age is an 'adult', they throw a blanket over all of them that supposedly covers the majority. Add to that 'moral/religious' considerations, we then end up with a convoluted mess.

There's one, and just ONE reason that maturity is set by a number: it's the only way to envelope it into laws.

There's one, and just ONE reason that maturity is set by a number: it's the only way to envelope it into laws.

I'm guessing you didn't correctly parse what I stated judging by that response.

He's agreeing with you, and you're jumping all over him? I suppose that's one way to identify a troll in the forums.

That was hardly 'jumping all over him', especially when I agreed with the main point of his argument. As such, it's definitely not worth a pissing match.

I'm guessing you didn't correctly parse what I stated judging by that response.

I do agree with you. My statement just wanted to make clear that setting numbers about maturity is the worst and possibly most stupid way to mark maturity but alas the only option to create laws about them.

Unfortunately, some of our over 18 adults would never qualify as an adult.

Unfortunately? I would see that as a great plus. It could remove some very irresponsible drivers from the roads :D
Some "adults" just don't deserve to be seen as adults.

Yes, and those are the 'adults' that would oppose any change to a new standard. There are a lot of them in my opinion. Unfortunately, they would probably be the ones defining the new standard and we all know they would not go for something that excluded them. So I won't hold my breath waiting for a new standard.

Time to start building some giant insects so they can bow before their new insect overlords. Who are actually humans remote operating them. :)

Time to start building some giant insects so they can bow before their new insect overlords. Who are actually humans remote operating them. :)

Such an amazing imagination, you should try writing a story about it :)

Such an amazing imagination, you should try writing a story about it :)

I was riffing on The Simpsons for that one.

https://youtu.be/8lcUHQYhPTE