Posted on 08/12/2019 11:05:56 PM PDT by knighthawk
It's also protecting boys so they can have normal first relationships and not have to compete with men.
In California the age of consent is 18 which can put most high school boys in jail. In New Jersey the age of consent is 13 as long as the older person is within 4 years of age. That sounds better suited for modern times.
While no parent wants their teen daughter getting knocked up, if they are sending her to a public high school they also need to put her on the pill.
That’s not the only religion that lacks what we would consider age of consent.
He was partially correct. Marriage of older teen girls, whether to older teen boys or adult males, was pretty much accepted in this country till just recently. Encouraging teen girls to have indiscriminate sex is a recent development and can be attributed to many things. Hello Planned Parenthood.
I just read this complete article originally from the NY Times. It has very little to do with this one statement. It is actually an interesting article to read about the authors interview with Epstein. The author certainly did not advocate sex with underage children.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the word “pedophile”, it is is defined as a person who has sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. Was Epstein interested in pre-pubescents? If not, why is he called a pedophile?
He liked that age group.
I did not interpret logician2u’s comment to mean he approves of the different cultural standards, only recognizing that they exist.
That's almost like saying "go ahead". Not a good move for parent OR child.
Not many of us could afford a "Sugar Baby", and damned few of our wives would approve if we could.
It was getting late and I should have been a little more clear in my initial comment.
That these cultural and legal differences exist elsewhere (as repulsive as they are to most of us) is no reason for changing laws in the USA to be in harmony with other cultures, even if there are covens of Democrats who would be in favor.
It's trite, but just because everybody else is--choose one: getting drunk, going nekkid, doing drugs, picking up 14-year-old girls--doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't mean mean I should also.
Most of the nations of the world in the 21st Century are "progressive" to the degree of being largely socialist, where the government owns or controls a significant fraction of the economy. It is not a model that we should emulate, no matter how many young people (including college graduates!) claim to favor socialism over our capitalist, free-enterprise system. That would be killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
On the other hand, I would strongly oppose applying the great power of the United States government, either diplomatically or by military action, in such a way as to force another nation to throw out socialism and adopt capitalism in its place. (And that would include Venezuela, along with most of the European countries.)
There is a better way. Americans who are concerned about conditions of poverty, child labor, deplorable living conditions and corrupt government officials in third world nations can find any number of non-profit organizations, churches and foundations whose mission coincides with their concerns.
Contribute your time, kick in some funds, write letters in support of their goals. And communicate with those who are living in oppressed countries, giving them support, information, confidence that things will turn around.
And they will, with time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.