A wise man (Orwell?) once said that revolution is merely the act of kicking in a rotten door. Well, as this post and its comments have made clear, the door separating children and sexuality has become thoroughly rotted through to the point where its lock and its bar have become all but irrelevant, and where that door now seemingly awaits only that fateful kick for all hell to break loose.

The only questions now are, who will deliver that kick, and when? If our entertainment and fashion industries have taken childhood sexuality to the brink of the cultural mainstream, how much longer before someone in academia, our education system, the MSM etc. tries to push it the rest of the way in, then lobby for its full legal sanction and political protection (including for the adults who partake in it)? What’s the over/under on when the notion that childhood sexuality isn’t such a good thing starts to be mentioned in the same breath as racism, homophobia, Islamophobia and global-warming denial?

And how will the American people respond when that happens?

Roy M. Postel

the main reason why (back in day-dawn of man) young girls were taken as wives is because the life span of human beings was comparatively short in comparison to today and child producing was more instinctual. the average man and woman died at 40.

with increased longevity, and the fact that women can safely have babies into their 30’s the rush to “procreate” is not as instinctual.

Ask any male today (outside the black or low income communities which present a whole other set of issues – mainly dispair) if impregnation of any female they desire is paramount in their minds when trying to “hook-up” and they will shutter in fear. The goal is sex, not babies. sex = pleasurable, babies = unpleasurable, complicates matters and presents unwanted responsibility with sex.

when researched, men who gravitated to children (minors) for sex showed issues of low self esteem as children and young women presented the least likely to judge them as well as the easiest to control, having little to do with wish to impregnate. impregnation took attention away from the man and his needs therefore the new added competition.

Stalin said quantity has it’s own quality — your child will be vastly outnumbered by Hispanics from Mexico and Mormons, since their children will be the only ones showing up for the future. In that future, THEY will be the discriminated against minority, with little power over their destiny.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice has an aside where Elizabeth Bennett comments on how her youngest sister Lydia at 15 was briefly considered for marriage, but discarded by the suitor because of her immaturity. Motherhood is no job for either slackers or immature girls, but the usual way in which humans reproduced was with young women expected and demanded to act maturely.

In most of human history, including that of the West, young women by their mid to late teens (and young men also) were expected to be and act as adults, not live endless adolescent lives into their thirties. Young women married at 17-19 or so (Elizabeth Bennett’s friend Charlotte Lucas was considered and old maid at 27), often to men in their early to mid 20’s. [I have heard it said the a woman's peak fertility is around 17-23, if so Western society has major problems.]

Children should not be sexualized. But teens ought to be treated like adults and expected to act as adults. With an adults understanding of sexuality, it’s value, and responsibilities. If a young woman wants to get married and have kids at 19, it should be socially encouraged if the match is good, and society should help her continue on with her career and studies, since woman’s ability to add to the workforce is important and should be valued. There is no reason at all why women should not receive social security for child care, and get assistance to go back to school and careers after time out for child care. This would get our TFR up to at least replacement rates.

Halving populations every generation of the most productive and native parts of Europe and the Anglophone nations is not a pretty future.

No, to all the horny old idiots that think it’s cool to mess with underage girls, there IS a huge difference between physically capable and mentally capable. No 16 year old, unless they are FLDS zombies, is going to care more about you than she does herself. 16 year olds are self-absorbed, fickle, ego-manical, concerned with fashion, lip gloss, dancing, texting, attention from not only 1 boy but ALL the boys because quite frankly it IS all about themselves. the educated “cool girls” idols are the girls from The Hills because of their cool careers and their clothes, cars, hair, your money, makeup and that’s about the size of it. These are usually the girls with good self-esteem. The world revolves around them and their plans and kudos to them. The last thing they want to do is be tied down with some old guy who’ll tell them what to do. They already have parents for that.

Girls with lower self esteem, from broken homes, low income households can usually fall prey to the old pervs who try to pick them up on myspace or facebook. What they are looking for is also attention but not the kind that a healthy adult mind looks for.

The common denominator between the two groups is age appropriate immaturity.

I didn’t deny that men allowed it. Thus the line I wrote, “when you ‘give’ women freedom.” Who do you think gave women their freedom?

Not too sharp in the reading comprehension department are you? It’s not like I’m quoting the Bible here or something.

If you’re going to be a ’smart ass,’ you need to concentrate more on the ’smart’ part- you’ve got the ‘ass’ part down.

“Beat ‘em, keep ‘em pregnant and in the kitchen, lest they turn into garbage.”

Evidence of your propagandized social programming- you are so primitive in your thinking that you believe the only way for women to be pressured into behaving is through violence.