I'll present the position. Follow-up with commentary.
Why are women under 18 illegal? Or even 17? Say 15?
I'm not hailing from the perspective of a pedophile, but a legitimate QUESTION from a mid-20's poster. It's rather rhetorical, because there's LUNACY inherent in such things. But here's my take...
Laws range from 15-18, depending on the state. Abroad, ages might be lower, but penalties harsher.
There was a time and place, when women were LESS physically developed, YET, they had children. They married. They cared for a home/house. They dated. Of course, they waited, but in 'talks' with great-grandmothers and others, it was a known fact great grandmothers had kids at what are extremely young ages compared with current generations. Currently, it's nearly 10 years later, literally WASTING good reproduction years.
Adding blocks to my defense, girls have their first menstrual cycle near 13, some younger, some older. This is Nature's way of saying, "You're Ready to have offspring." One contests that, a girl of such an age CANNOT mentally handle having kids at such an age. I contest that NO one is ever ready. Granted, I have not personally had children, BUT, have been bed-side for many births, and friends with too few dolts who father illegitimate children. That said...
Nature states she is ready at 13 or so. It might be a grizzly image, BUT, this is only so because society has said such. It never WAS this way.
Why did the laws become enacted?
Why, when women are MORE physically developed, with MORE schooling, are they are waiting SO long to have kids? Or consecrate relationships?
One Theory:
Pushing the age forth allowed schooling to dismantle the family unit. If girls' weren't engaging in serious, monogamous relationships EARLY, or having kids young, they could be in school LONGER, and would be impressionable to a host of OTHER beliefs, feelings, and values, that she would have gained from a husband or father.
Sound like a farce? I'll be prepared to repeatedly post here to back such claims.
Not only does the Employment Age Law ruin the apprenticeships of young boys, who gained valuable experience at a young age (which was echoed by Rockefellar and Morgan that aided in their fortunes), but it results in MORE immaturity amongst boys, the sense that boyhood lasts LONGER, prolonging the immaturity cycle, perhaps forever.
Ask yourself: What's the best way to get ahead? To gain wealth? To decide upon a career occupation?
APPRENTICESHIP.
INTERNSHIP.
Working for real, such experience FAR more valuable than pure education. It's the internship/apprenticeship that LENDS itself to requiring EDUCATION and RESEARCH, not the reverse. HOWEVER, the system itself is EDUCATION first, then WORK. WRONG. Education and research are NECESSITIES of work. Until you are actually working, you cannot know what education/training you need, or even IF you need. Hence the great plight of the indebted masses of millions of college students.
I find it odd, that, we had child labor in factories, at possibly the most dangerous point, and yet, we now have very, very safe labor, but kids put off working until 15. As if working EARLIER than 15 would harm the child. Directly the opposite, it builds self-confidence, advances one's ability years beyond his peers, provides income and skills, as well as direction. The confusion of current and future generations as to purpose, stems from the problem that, work is being romanticized and spiritualized, that no child gains REAL experience until they're 18 or 21, or post college, and most kids WASTE their lives disocvering what it is to do, because they can't learn much about it until they're older.
Coming full turn to women and girls...it was AS IF, we were trying to be protected, by why should we? Is it not our own life? What's the unlikely consequences?
-Kids would KNOW what to do before college.
-Kids wouldn't get public education.
-Kids would become independent thinkers.
-Kids would be with their parents, if at all possible.
Now girls, it seems they're 'freed', and they are, but if they were TRULY free, such laws wouldn't necessarily exist. TO me, the law presupposes a FEW things.
*That men are evil, and would try to coax young women into awkward situations, perhaps leaving a burden on society.
*That young girls can't make correct decisions.
*That they must be protected.
Most guys nowadays can't determine a girl being 18 or 14, truly, and yet we should feel ashamed?
I got onto this topic because research, but also personally, some girls went off the Pill. I'm happy for them. Not only did it cause them to lose weight immediately, but their mental stability changed, they're MORE cautiously sexually, and they have clarity, amongst a HOST of other health and mental benefits. Some guys, who want to FAWK alot, would be disatisfied, BUT, the pill creates these problems guys come here for.
*Girls are more promiscuous on the pill.
*Girls are more careless on the pill, i.e. not using condoms, random partners, forgetting to take it regularly.
*Girls are more emotional, due to the heightened levels of estrogen and nor-estrogen in their blood stream.
*Girls gain weight and likely won't get rid of it. Naturally, women are 5%+ more in bodyweight. Couple that with ADDITIONAL estrogen, and few attempts at weight loss will ever yield success.
Yes, it does have health benefits, as I've known women who went on it to mitigate cramping, erase acne / pimples, grow breasts, regulate menstrual cycles, and so forth. But as nature intended, so shall nature be. Unless human beings are a flawed design in need of science to make us?
-------------------------------------------
The illegality of the situation regarding young women, just seems to obviously flawed, both on the surface and after research that I wonder why nobody questions it?
It comes down to the medium upon which you are brought up in. Cousins and relatives of mine in rural towns of Maine hover close to the family unit. This is why alot of businesses up their are sole propietorships, or the flip side, people working at Wal-mart, but very minimal hours. Family is first. And as such, kids carry out the tradition. 2 of my own cousins will be married before age 22, 1 already, the other, a female cousin of 19, who did so BEFORE considering college.
The only opponents who consider it DUMB are those who believe she must be a piece of the proletariat, working her butt off for someone else but herself. The argument I hear so often is OTHERS placing their morality on her, or me, or whoever. I in fact heard only a female friend of mine call her "stupid", at which point the line went dead when I hung up. She apologized, but that doesn't erase the fact that an epidemic of MY MORALITY IS BETTER THAN YOUR's is sweeping the nation.
To me, such a topic as Young Women isn't WRONG, and shouldn't be illegal, it's a PERSONAL choice. But the feeling is, we must remain in school for 12-16 years of our early life, giving most of that to state governed schooling, and if girls were involved in relationships, marriages, or child-rearing EARLY, they wouldn't be in school. It might seem unfathomable today that women could birth kids young, BUT, consider that your own family lineage hails from just that: young mothers birthing kids.
You could take the stance that...Well, longevity wasn't what it is. True. People died under 55, and mothers' often died in birth. BUT, if we live LONGER, and we've supposedly made PROGRESS, why can't girls birth kids younger, have MORE kids, and provide MORE for their kids now, than ever before? Changes in science have not changed menstrual cycles or fertility periods. It has allowed a SELECT few men and women to have kids later in life, but only a handfull. And with the population dwindling, it's a wonder WHY the law became law, when the precendent was set BEFORE it.
One would think if we made progress...girls could birth kids younger, to accomplished men, willing to care for their beautiful woman / wife, creating a tight family knit. In the future, she'd find her calling in a career, at an age when her ability to birth children is beyond her. The opposite scream is that fulfillment is found OUTSIDE the family and personal relationships, and rather in the attainment of social status, wealth, material possessions, important personal connections, multitudes of sexual partners, and some ULTIMATELY spiritual career.
Does it?
A-Unit
Why are women under 18 illegal? Or even 17? Say 15?
I'm not hailing from the perspective of a pedophile, but a legitimate QUESTION from a mid-20's poster. It's rather rhetorical, because there's LUNACY inherent in such things. But here's my take...
Laws range from 15-18, depending on the state. Abroad, ages might be lower, but penalties harsher.
There was a time and place, when women were LESS physically developed, YET, they had children. They married. They cared for a home/house. They dated. Of course, they waited, but in 'talks' with great-grandmothers and others, it was a known fact great grandmothers had kids at what are extremely young ages compared with current generations. Currently, it's nearly 10 years later, literally WASTING good reproduction years.
Adding blocks to my defense, girls have their first menstrual cycle near 13, some younger, some older. This is Nature's way of saying, "You're Ready to have offspring." One contests that, a girl of such an age CANNOT mentally handle having kids at such an age. I contest that NO one is ever ready. Granted, I have not personally had children, BUT, have been bed-side for many births, and friends with too few dolts who father illegitimate children. That said...
Nature states she is ready at 13 or so. It might be a grizzly image, BUT, this is only so because society has said such. It never WAS this way.
Why did the laws become enacted?
Why, when women are MORE physically developed, with MORE schooling, are they are waiting SO long to have kids? Or consecrate relationships?
One Theory:
Pushing the age forth allowed schooling to dismantle the family unit. If girls' weren't engaging in serious, monogamous relationships EARLY, or having kids young, they could be in school LONGER, and would be impressionable to a host of OTHER beliefs, feelings, and values, that she would have gained from a husband or father.
Sound like a farce? I'll be prepared to repeatedly post here to back such claims.
Not only does the Employment Age Law ruin the apprenticeships of young boys, who gained valuable experience at a young age (which was echoed by Rockefellar and Morgan that aided in their fortunes), but it results in MORE immaturity amongst boys, the sense that boyhood lasts LONGER, prolonging the immaturity cycle, perhaps forever.
Ask yourself: What's the best way to get ahead? To gain wealth? To decide upon a career occupation?
APPRENTICESHIP.
INTERNSHIP.
Working for real, such experience FAR more valuable than pure education. It's the internship/apprenticeship that LENDS itself to requiring EDUCATION and RESEARCH, not the reverse. HOWEVER, the system itself is EDUCATION first, then WORK. WRONG. Education and research are NECESSITIES of work. Until you are actually working, you cannot know what education/training you need, or even IF you need. Hence the great plight of the indebted masses of millions of college students.
I find it odd, that, we had child labor in factories, at possibly the most dangerous point, and yet, we now have very, very safe labor, but kids put off working until 15. As if working EARLIER than 15 would harm the child. Directly the opposite, it builds self-confidence, advances one's ability years beyond his peers, provides income and skills, as well as direction. The confusion of current and future generations as to purpose, stems from the problem that, work is being romanticized and spiritualized, that no child gains REAL experience until they're 18 or 21, or post college, and most kids WASTE their lives disocvering what it is to do, because they can't learn much about it until they're older.
Coming full turn to women and girls...it was AS IF, we were trying to be protected, by why should we? Is it not our own life? What's the unlikely consequences?
-Kids would KNOW what to do before college.
-Kids wouldn't get public education.
-Kids would become independent thinkers.
-Kids would be with their parents, if at all possible.
Now girls, it seems they're 'freed', and they are, but if they were TRULY free, such laws wouldn't necessarily exist. TO me, the law presupposes a FEW things.
*That men are evil, and would try to coax young women into awkward situations, perhaps leaving a burden on society.
*That young girls can't make correct decisions.
*That they must be protected.
Most guys nowadays can't determine a girl being 18 or 14, truly, and yet we should feel ashamed?
I got onto this topic because research, but also personally, some girls went off the Pill. I'm happy for them. Not only did it cause them to lose weight immediately, but their mental stability changed, they're MORE cautiously sexually, and they have clarity, amongst a HOST of other health and mental benefits. Some guys, who want to FAWK alot, would be disatisfied, BUT, the pill creates these problems guys come here for.
*Girls are more promiscuous on the pill.
*Girls are more careless on the pill, i.e. not using condoms, random partners, forgetting to take it regularly.
*Girls are more emotional, due to the heightened levels of estrogen and nor-estrogen in their blood stream.
*Girls gain weight and likely won't get rid of it. Naturally, women are 5%+ more in bodyweight. Couple that with ADDITIONAL estrogen, and few attempts at weight loss will ever yield success.
Yes, it does have health benefits, as I've known women who went on it to mitigate cramping, erase acne / pimples, grow breasts, regulate menstrual cycles, and so forth. But as nature intended, so shall nature be. Unless human beings are a flawed design in need of science to make us?
-------------------------------------------
The illegality of the situation regarding young women, just seems to obviously flawed, both on the surface and after research that I wonder why nobody questions it?
It comes down to the medium upon which you are brought up in. Cousins and relatives of mine in rural towns of Maine hover close to the family unit. This is why alot of businesses up their are sole propietorships, or the flip side, people working at Wal-mart, but very minimal hours. Family is first. And as such, kids carry out the tradition. 2 of my own cousins will be married before age 22, 1 already, the other, a female cousin of 19, who did so BEFORE considering college.
The only opponents who consider it DUMB are those who believe she must be a piece of the proletariat, working her butt off for someone else but herself. The argument I hear so often is OTHERS placing their morality on her, or me, or whoever. I in fact heard only a female friend of mine call her "stupid", at which point the line went dead when I hung up. She apologized, but that doesn't erase the fact that an epidemic of MY MORALITY IS BETTER THAN YOUR's is sweeping the nation.
To me, such a topic as Young Women isn't WRONG, and shouldn't be illegal, it's a PERSONAL choice. But the feeling is, we must remain in school for 12-16 years of our early life, giving most of that to state governed schooling, and if girls were involved in relationships, marriages, or child-rearing EARLY, they wouldn't be in school. It might seem unfathomable today that women could birth kids young, BUT, consider that your own family lineage hails from just that: young mothers birthing kids.
You could take the stance that...Well, longevity wasn't what it is. True. People died under 55, and mothers' often died in birth. BUT, if we live LONGER, and we've supposedly made PROGRESS, why can't girls birth kids younger, have MORE kids, and provide MORE for their kids now, than ever before? Changes in science have not changed menstrual cycles or fertility periods. It has allowed a SELECT few men and women to have kids later in life, but only a handfull. And with the population dwindling, it's a wonder WHY the law became law, when the precendent was set BEFORE it.
One would think if we made progress...girls could birth kids younger, to accomplished men, willing to care for their beautiful woman / wife, creating a tight family knit. In the future, she'd find her calling in a career, at an age when her ability to birth children is beyond her. The opposite scream is that fulfillment is found OUTSIDE the family and personal relationships, and rather in the attainment of social status, wealth, material possessions, important personal connections, multitudes of sexual partners, and some ULTIMATELY spiritual career.
Does it?
A-Unit
