Given that there is an ever growing culture of false Rape and child Abuse accusations especially in cases of divorce and similar something needs to be done to tackle this problem. How many innocent people can they throw in jail.

All it takes these days for a bitter and twisted person to ruin someone is a few lies no evidence at all required, these are very frightening times.

I think a national register should be kept of anyone man or woman making a false allegation and believe they should recieve a minimum of ten years for these crimes instead of a pat on the back and the prospect of a big fat cheque. These false accusers are every bit as dangerous to society if not more so than the sex offenders themselves.

What I fail to understand is the guilty even when proved totally innocent attitude of todays society especially in the case of sex offences. Are people unable to look at something rationally and with a degree of common sense anymore.

"...and the innate preference for female youth and beauty..."

There's the rub.

"innate" for whom?

Innate for most men, and certainly the vast majority of heterosexual women who are feminists' targets.

ThingsAreBad wrote:
Innate for most men, and certainly the vast majority of heterosexual women who are feminists' targets.

So let me get this straight, because I'm still not quite sure exactly what you are claiming. "Most" men have a preference for young girls? And so do "the vast majority of heterosexual women"? If I've understood that correctly it's quite a bizarre allegation.

Locked Out wrote:
"...and the innate preference for female youth and beauty..."

There's the rub.

"innate" for whom?

Well none of us would be here today and the human race would have died out many thousands of years ago if the vast majority of us didn't have an innate preference for female youth and beauty.

Locked Out wrote:
No, none of us would be here today and the human race would have died out many thousands of years ago if the majority of men hadn't copulated with women. "Innate preference for female youth and beauty" is the preserve solely of those who prefer young girls. There's nothing "innate" about that in the "vast majority" of "us".

And "us" means the human race. Not just men.

Well, considering that for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15, and that 'women' would have been on the shelf if they hadn't attracted a mate by the time they were out of their teens, I think your 'theory' would probably only find a home in a 'gender studies' course.

PleaseStopPostingInSillyNamesAllRunTogetherWithCapitalLettersIt'sVeryAnnoying.

RapeIsBad wrote:

Well, considering that for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15, and that 'women' would have been on the shelf if they hadn't attracted a mate by the time they were out of their teens, I think your 'theory' would probably only find a home in a 'gender studies' course.

Actually my "theory" is not the one which needs substantiating. You've made a claim, it's up to you to supply the evidence to support it. If what you have come up with above is the best you've got I suggest you do some research because it doesn't hold water.

The real reason why "for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15" was that infant mortality rates were very high and life expectancy was very short.

Nowadays there is no biological imperative for such early marriage {and where, incidentally, has marriage ever been a subject you have previously had any interest in writing here about?}, indeed were any such practical factors involved they would be much more likely to be selective of women of working age, as they can contribute in not only a nurturing but also a financial capacity.

You believe that you are presenting a reasonable argument. It's one I've heard loads of times before. And it's still more of an excuse than an argument.

JK2006 wrote:
PleaseStopPostingInSillyNamesAllRunTogetherWithCapitalLettersIt'sVeryAnnoying.

PassMyGlassesItsGettingVeryBlurry!

Locked Out wrote:
RapeIsBad wrote:

Well, considering that for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15, and that 'women' would have been on the shelf if they hadn't attracted a mate by the time they were out of their teens, I think your 'theory' would probably only find a home in a 'gender studies' course.

Actually my "theory" is not the one which needs substantiating. You've made a claim, it's up to you to supply the evidence to support it. If what you have come up with above is the best you've got I suggest you do some research because it doesn't hold water.

The real reason why "for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15" was that infant mortality rates were very high and life expectancy was very short.

Nowadays there is no biological imperative for such early marriage {and where, incidentally, has marriage ever been a subject you have previously had any interest in writing here about?}, indeed were any such practical factors involved they would be much more likely to be selective of women of working age, as they can contribute in not only a nurturing but also a financial capacity.

You believe that you are presenting a reasonable argument. It's one I've heard loads of times before. And it's still more of an excuse than an argument.

No, you have consistantly made the extraordinary claim that anybody who admits to finding youth attractive is a perverted paedophile who is suffering from cognitive distortion if he questions age of consent laws. I don't need to substantiate this if YOU are supporting laws that allow the state to lock up men and restrict the choices of young people.

We're not talking about at what age people marry today, or which age men find females most attractive to marry - the point is whether men would be inclined to find teenage girls sexy. Our genes are with us today because of the mating practices of our ancestors over the last hundred millenia. People marry later but the Sun still saved itself from bankruptcy a couple of decades ago by publishing the nubile breasts of 16 year old girls.

The fact that couples do not get married until later these days has absolutely no relevance to anything (evolutionary wise). Except in the fact that it is the very reason that feminism was brought into existance - a free sexual market came into being with the advent of contraception and later marriage ages, meaning that men had available for casual sex nubile young girls from the teens and early twentys. This situation had never existed before in human history and second and third wave feminism is the story of older women trying to deal with it and reassert their lost sexual power.

Blackit wrote:


No, you have consistantly made the extraordinary claim that anybody who admits to finding youth attractive is a perverted paedophile who is suffering from cognitive distortion if he questions age of consent laws.

Please point me at those "extraordinary claims". Because I've never said any of those things.


Blackit wrote:
I don't need to substantiate this if YOU are supporting laws that allow the state to lock up men and restrict the choices of young people.

I'm not talking about "young people". Young people have - and always have had - had sex lives. The older people that take an exclusive interest in those sex lives - or attempt to involve themselves in them - are the worrying aspect.

Blackit wrote:
We're not talking about at what age people marry today, or which age men find females most attractive to marry

"Well, considering that for most of history the mean age of marriage has been around 14 or 15, and that 'women' would have been on the shelf if they hadn't attracted a mate by the time they were out of their teens..."

You know what? I can't be bothered to answer any more of your rantings. It's clear that you have some pretty tough issues. But I've sort of lost interest. The floor's yours.

Locked Out wrote:



You know what? I can't be bothered to answer any more of your rantings. It's clear that you have some pretty tough issues. But I've sort of lost interest. The floor's yours.

Considering that your first and only attempt at logic and debate has revealed a singularly embarrassing failure to even grasp the basic concept of evolutionary theory, that's probably a wise move.

Locked Out wrote:

I'm not talking about "young people". Young people have - and always have had - had sex lives. The older people that take an exclusive interest in those sex lives - or attempt to involve themselves in them - are the worrying aspect.

Actually, you're the one who is maintaining the absolute right of the state to interfere in the sexual lives of young people. The mistake you're making is assuming that a moral stance of supporting the present age of consent is morally neutral in its effects. No it's not. A 15 year old dragged through court and forced to testify against an older lover in order that he be imprisoned, then forced to accept the label of child abuse victim and told repeatedly that he/she will be damaged for life IS undeniably harmed by that experience. You don't need junk feminist science to realise that.

If you're wrong over the age of consent - and the good people of France, Germany, Spain, Italy (i.e.over half of Europe) thinks you're wrong, then YOU are responsible for those young people being needlessly damaged. In other words, you are a child abuser. Not to mention the injustice concerning the older lover.

There's also a concept in philosophy called 'moral luck'. It's to do with apportioning moral praise or blame to an agent for his actions. If you are wrong about the age of consent, then you are responsible for maintaining a system that damages the lives of thousands of young people each year. However, even if you're right, it could be said that given that you don't even want to discuss the possibility of being wrong (i.e. if you accuse people of being paedophiles for even questioning an age of consent at 16), you are guilty of child endangerment in that it is simply luck that you are right (not the result of any reason or rational discussion).

BTW, wtf with regard to your statement about 'exclusive interest'? Do you think it's o.k for men to sleep with teenagers so long as they spread their love around with older women as well?

Anyone who thinks that the vast majority of heterosexual men are not attracted to youth and beauty in women is bonkers.

We live in a world where so many men think of their own natural male sexuality as inherently evil, full of guilt for how they've "oppressed women" and how they "objectify women", so full of denial they aren't even able to admit that they find youth attractive in women. It's really quite sad.