Marriage is the safest place for women (Congressmen, drug, Missouri)

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

First of all, don't get drunk - between 40 and 50 percent of rape victims are intoxicated at the time of the assault. Never married and divorced women tend to participate too much in a culture of alcohol abuse because that's where the easily available men seem to be.

Second, don't advertise yourself as available for non-marital sex by your dress and behavior.

Third, keep good company. If you don't hang out with other ladies with bad habits, you won't get caught up in their mistakes.

But the post was not really about what individuals should do. It's about culture and public policy. We need to return to a culture of marriage - and by that I mean early marriage - and public policies that reflect this priority.

So women can dump and disown the jerks early and go on to live single and happy sooner?

How 'early' is early? Would the many 14 year olds in my family tree be too young or should they graduate from high school first?

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by helenejen

No, that's what you religious zealots do. The rest of us just work from the facts, hence the logical thread of reason that you chalk up to a conspiracy.

Really? You call the posts below "working from facts"?

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

So what oppressive laws do you want passed to promote your findings? Single motherhood should be banned?

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

What does the OP have against women?

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

Are you posting from Saudi Arabia?

Originally Posted by twinArmageddons

Then we better legalize homosexual marriage soon, eh?

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

Yes...every woman can't get married for one.
Life doesn't work like it does in your country.
Women aren't forced to marry their cousins or some strange man.

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

Time to bring the Burka to the USA.

When did you embrace Sharia law???

Originally Posted by helenejen

I really think you'd be more comfortable in a theocracy, OP. I'll help you pack!!

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

Oh,sorry. I thought some of you were posting from countries with Sharia Law.

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Why is it Cons want our country to become a Muslim country?.

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

Sounds to me like he should start a congregation and seek out other misogynists so they can all get together and bash on women in general in the privacy of their own church and leave their holy rolling out of POC.

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Oh, so women are now choosing to be raped? It's their fault, right? Next you'll be saying that if a women gets pregnant while being raped that she wasn't really raped....

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

So do you want to make if a crime for unmarried people to have sex? If so, how long should they have to be thrown in prison?

Originally Posted by Savoir Faire

Considering you live in California, I'm amazed too. Even conservative counties like Orange County, are filled with debauchery and wickedness.

Saudia Arabia is a better fit.

Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie

So do you want it to be a crime for unmarried people to have sex, or not?

All of the above sounds more like deflection and imflammatory rhetoric rather then reliance on facts.

[helenejen]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Really? You call the posts below "working from facts"?

Perhaps you've missed the fact that the claim made by the OP has been dismantled and proven false. Even to many reasonable people, the OP's claims appeared highly unlikely, even without the use of facts. Nonetheless facts have been provided throughout the thread, including from the OP's source, that prove this thread false. Furthermore, when someone puts forth an argument, an audience, in part, makes sense of that argument via the author's ethos, which is strongly connected to values and beliefs that go unstated in the author's argument; these are called enthymemes. An audience is quite within their right to comment on ethos. If you don't like that, take it up with Aristotle.

And frankly, most of your posts are nothing but inflammatory rhetoric, so you are the last person to be throwing stones at others about doing that.

[Savoir Faire]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Sorry, wrong theocracy, and the burquas would bore me silly. The teetotaling might also be a problem:

But Catholic men that live upon wine
Are deep in the water, and frank, and fine;
Wherever I travel I find it so,
Benedicamus Domino.

But congratulations on setting up a nice false dichotomy: burquas, or tramp-stamped pole dancers, nothing in between so pick your poison.

Reality is a little different.

So you do support a theocracy, just not a Muslim one.

Tis a shame that you don't realize how much in common you have with your radical Muslim brothers .

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

OK, so maybe you're called to a life of chaste singlehood. Nothing wrong with that at all: not everyone is cut out to be married. In better times, up to 1/3 of the adult population were in religious orders.

But here's the thing about today's sexually liberated landscape: it's not monogamous anymore (serial "monogamy" is not monagamy), and as a result the men and women on the margins are left in the cold.



Of course not. The average age of first sexual intercourse has, historically, been around 17 y/o. The human body is ready for it, and traditionally men and women have also been psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually ready for it. There is no reason why that first sexual experience should not once again take place within the sanctity of marriage. The only thing in the way is the radically delayed maturity of stunted moderns whose ideals have shifted from marriage and family to a life of perpetual adolescence.

If traditionally its 17 why are there sooooo many 14 and fifteen year old brides in my geneology in the last couple hundrend years? And they were more or less mostly midwest farm types. And 17 is WAY too young for marriage. Get out and have a life and find out who you are and then marry someone who fits into the life which you find. Teenagers have no clue at all about that. Today early marriages go bust very often since we don't have to stay married to be respectable.

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Now - back to the topic - which the liberals refuse to discuss.

Stop deflecting - and address the study.

What is so wrong with the OP's suggestion?

What is the OP's suggestion?

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

marriage should be more binding than it currently is.

quickie ceremonies and divorces should be abolished.

there should also be a max amount of times a woman can marry, say 3 times.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

If traditionally its 17 why are there sooooo many 14 and fifteen year old brides in my geneology in the last couple hundrend years? And they were more or less mostly midwest farm types.

17 y/o is an average. That means that some were younger and some were older. Maybe your family had some peculiarities ... who knows?

Originally Posted by nightbird47

And 17 is WAY too young for marriage.

For some it is, but not for most. Why this war against biology?

[raison_d'etre]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

marriage should be more binding than it currently is.

How so? Should only men be allowed to break off a marriage?

quickie ceremonies and divorces should be abolished

How long should they be? Say a 3 hour mass in a catholic church? A week long ceremony?

Divorces aren't quick. I know. Most drag on for months and even after the divorce is finalized, most divorces are never over if children are involved.

there should also be a max amount of times a woman can marry, say 3 times.

How many many times should a man be allowed to remarry?

[Baldrick]

Originally Posted by Harrier

What is so wrong with the OP's suggestion?

I wasn't aware the OP was making a suggestion. You stated earlier that "The OP was just sharing statistics" (Harrier post #34).

Could you please clarify?