I was watching another segment on the polygamist case in TX

[Colleen]

I think that if consenting adults choose to live a polyamorous lifestyle, than that is up to them, and no business of the gov. Thus I don't think polygamy should be illegal.

 

I agree with you much of what you said here, as well as with comments from a number of poster's (such as Whisperlily). Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

[Sara R]

In the case of the FLDS girls who are under 18 and pregnant or have a child, it is highly unlikely that a marriage license was ever sought. If the man was 18 or over, this is statutory rape.

 

Why do you think it's highly unlikely? Here's how I think it could work legally (I have no proof): Man marries wife #1, divorce legally, freeing him to marry wife #2, divorce legally, and so on. Man is married to one wife at a time while living as married with more than one.

 

I would think they would be extra careful to legally marry someone under 18, to give them a little safety from the law in a place like Texas where they don't have a history. These are people who (last time I drove through Colorado City) leave their houses unfinished (without siding, etc.) so they can avoid paying property taxes. They seem pretty good at working the loopholes.

[Cheryl in NM]

Why do you think it's highly unlikely? Here's how I think it could work legally (I have no proof): Man marries wife #1, divorce legally, freeing him to marry wife #2, divorce legally, and so on. Man is married to one wife at a time while living as married with more than one.

 

 

Great status is given to the legal wife. She is considered the matriach.

[pixelroper]

"It is also highly likely that abuse to younger children did occur. Here, for example, is a video clip of Carolyn Jessop who describes water torture of babies."

 

Her statements have been the only reference to water torturing babies, which for the life of me, I can't figure out what could possibly be the purpose of. And the claims of one do not point to anything being "highly likely." She claims it was to instill fear of the father in the children, why would anyone go to that much trouble when just being loud frightens most let alone babies?

 

It makes no sense. Water torture has been all over the news for quite awhile, specifically involving Guantanamo and the military interrogations of captured and suspected terrorists. I have not heard of any civilians outside of a crime organization having done anything like this. Please point the way if this is more common in the civilian sphere than I thought.

[st_claire]

Several posters have said that while its ok for a legally married 16 year old to have children, its rape for a non-state sanctioned 16 year old to do the same.

 

That's really confusing for me. While that seems to be the law in texas, what does everyone think about it? I think that if people are married or not, it shouldn't change the legal age of consent.

 

Here in Canada, the age of consent for is 14 years. It does not matter if you are married or not. (Anal intercourse is restricted to those married or those 18 years or older, which is a law designed to discriminate against homosexuals and would *not* hold up in court).

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that you should be allowed to decide to marry someone and then have sex with them, but not allowed to just have sex with them. What do others think?

[yinne]

I saw an interview with Carolyn Jessop and she stated that some of the women that were being interviewed where the women that she was a 'sister wife' to. She stated that if she hadn't gotten out when she did, she would have been with the group sent to Texas and would not have had a chance to escape.

 

Yvonne in NE

[yinne]

I saw one interview from a girl that had gotten out when she was around 15 years of age. She stated that she can never remember a time when her father even knew who she was. There were so many wives and children that he always asked her what her name was and who her mother was. If that is typical of the father/child relationship it is not a very nuturing relationship.

 

Here is a link to her interview. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4677685

 

Yvonne in NE

[Fourmother]

Several posters have said that while its ok for a legally married 16 year old to have children, its rape for a non-state sanctioned 16 year old to do the same. ...

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that you should be allowed to decide to marry someone and then have sex with them, but not allowed to just have sex with them. What do others think?

 

I've been thinking about this, too. I guess the presumption is that the girls are neither choosing marriage nor choosing sex with much older men. The choice is being made for them. And there's a certain "yuck" factor attached to that kind of arrangement. On the other hand we know that teenage girls can and do choose to be sexually active and have children. While these kinds of choices are saddening to most people, they don't inspire the same "yuck." It begs the question, though. Why isn't the public outraged by the rates of teen pregnancy in general? Is the media only interested when the teen mothers look and dress like the Ingalls family and belong to a cult?

[Scarlett]

It begs the question, though. Why isn't the public outraged at the rates of teen pregnancy in general? Is the media only interested when the teen mothers dress like the Ingalls family and belong to a cult?

 

She was a public school teacher and saw many many sad cases of abused and neglected kids that never got the attention this case in TX is getting. (I still think the thinking of FDLS is particularly icky though.)

[Twinmom]

One thing that I've noticed hasn't yet been mentioned is what happens to the boys with this group. In other situations like this (polygamist groups) that have hit the news, once the boys hit puberty they are often forced out of the group as they become "competition" to the older men for the girls. There cannot be a surplus of men and have a polygamist group work out well, so some of the "men" have to go. I can remember stories about "lost boys," or boys forced from these groups in their early teens with little to no education or skills and no place to go. They do not fare well.

 

If this has been going on there, perhaps it is one of the many reasons ALL the children were removed rather than just the girls of "marriageable" age (and I use that term VERY loosely! :eek:). As a mom of young boys, it horrifies me to think about what life must be like for those "lost boys." What happens to the young girls is horrifying, IMO, but these boys are truly "lost" and forgotten. Their plight is often not even mentioned.

 

 

I think that what I mentioned above still applies. As a former TX social worker with child welfare experience, I have to say that I think there is far more going on here than just condemnation of an "alternative lifestyle." There are many alternative lifestyles, and yes, there are situations in which innocent families are persecuted as a result (I'm an HSLDA member for a reason! ;))...though in my experience, most of those situations resolve themselves with time. However, I don't think this is the case here.

 

With FLDS, there is the obvious sexual abuse...obvious not just because of an arbitrarily legally defined age of consent but obvious because of the issue of choice on the part of the young girl. There is none. There is the issue I raised regarding the boys, and also the issue of grooming those boys who remain to accept/commit statutory rape and "absentee" fathering...that is also abuse, IMO. There is also the victimization of the adult women who have been groomed from childhood to believe that this lifestyle is the only choice they have beyond eternal condemnation, and the fact that they then are conditioned to raise their children in the same fashion. What kind of life can they have outside the compound given that environment? Only the most strong can likely go it alone.

 

It's a bad, complicated situation all around. I caution those who have not walked the complicated walk of the child welfare worker not to judge too harshly. The legal mess they must wade through to help these children cannot be underestimated, and their choices for response are painfully limited. I do believe they have the children AND the mother's best interests at heart and I think given the complications, for now they are doing the best they can for all involved. Hopefully, given the amount of media attention this has generated, they will have more options available to them AND will work tirelessly for the best possible outcome.

 

On a more personal note, I sure would like to see some of these so-called caring fathers show their faces before the cameras and give the poor moms a break! :D Poor girls!

[Twinmom]

Why isn't the public outraged by the rates of teen pregnancy in general? Is the media only interested when the teen mothers look and dress like the Ingalls family and belong to a cult?

 

That ticks me off, too. I have worked too many cases of statutory rape, sexual abuse, physical abuse, you name it where no one got ticked off at all. They just weren't media-worthy! However, I don't believe that makes FLDS any less abusive. These kids will get better justice because they make better press...a sad fact of life in child welfare. :glare:

[Moxie]

With FLDS, there is the obvious sexual abuse...obvious not just because of an arbitrarily legally defined age of consent but obvious because of the issue of choice on the part of the young girl. There is none. There is the issue I raised regarding the boys, and also the issue of grooming those boys who remain to accept/commit statutory rape and "absentee" fathering...that is also abuse, IMO. There is also the victimization of the adult women who have been groomed from childhood to believe that this lifestyle is the only choice they have beyond eternal condemnation, and the fact that they then are conditioned to raise their children in the same fashion. What kind of life can they have outside the compound given that environment? Only the most strong can likely go it alone.

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Thank you for saying this. It has been in my head for weeks, I just couldn't come up with the words as well as you did.

[Robin in Tx]

You go, Charon. Thank you.

[Robin in Tx]

To me, that is even more abuse.

 

Amy, I agree with you 100%. How can tsk tsk those people for their actions at the same time we gawk over live film of their unfolding horror?

[amy g.]

My conscience won't let me watch the news.

 

I have to read online (Is that any better?) or read the paper. I just can't stand how they treat people.

[beansprouts]

I've been thinking about this, too. I guess the presumption is that the girls are neither choosing marriage nor choosing sex with much older men. The choice is being made for them. And there's a certain "yuck" factor attached to that kind of arrangement. On the other hand we know that teenage girls can and do choose to be sexually active and have children. While these kinds of choices are saddening to most people, they don't inspire the same "yuck." It begs the question, though. Why isn't the public outraged by the rates of teen pregnancy in general? Is the media only interested when the teen mothers look and dress like the Ingalls family and belong to a cult?

 

The difference is children acting out sexually with other children versus children being preyed upon by adults.

 

FTR I do not agree that a 16 year old has the maturity to consent to anything. She is a child in a woman's body, and that is what makes her so desireable to adults who would take advantage of her.

[beansprouts]

There is the issue I raised regarding the boys, and also the issue of grooming those boys who remain to accept/commit statutory rape and "absentee" fathering...that is also abuse, IMO. There is also the victimization of the adult women who have been groomed from childhood to believe that this lifestyle is the only choice they have beyond eternal condemnation, and the fact that they then are conditioned to raise their children in the same fashion. What kind of life can they have outside the compound given that environment? Only the most strong can likely go it alone.

 

 

I agree with everything Twinmom has said on this subject.

[Cheryl in NM]

Several posters have said that while its ok for a legally married 16 year old to have children, its rape for a non-state sanctioned 16 year old to do the same.

 

...

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that you should be allowed to decide to marry someone and then have sex with them, but not allowed to just have sex with them. What do others think?

 

When I mentioned statutory rape it was in regards to a girl under the age of consent and a man over the age of consent. Even if the girl willing consented I guess the law assumes that, based on her age, the girl couldn't make a good decision for herself.

[Kate CA]

Carolyn Jessop is from a different group, correct?

 

No, CJ was a FLDS member. She was from the other location though, not the TX one.

[Peek a Boo]

Several posters have said that while its ok for a legally married 16 year old to have children, its rape for a non-state sanctioned 16 year old to do the same.

 

That's really confusing for me. While that seems to be the law in texas, what does everyone think about it? I think that if people are married or not, it shouldn't change the legal age of consent.

 

Here in Canada, the age of consent for is 14 years. It does not matter if you are married or not. (Anal intercourse is restricted to those married or those 18 years or older, which is a law designed to discriminate against homosexuals and would *not* hold up in court).

 

It just doesn't make sense to me that you should be allowed to decide to marry someone and then have sex with them, but not allowed to just have sex with them. What do others think?

 

i tend to think "age of consent" should be right up there w/ 'age to enter into legally binding contracts w/o needing permission from another" --at least 18. Or 25 ;)

 

It also ticks me off that one can die for our country at 18 but can't buy a beer till 21. Change one of those ages!!!

 

I do believe we need to revamp LOTS of our laws but understand they need to prosecute on the law as it's written.

 

all that being said, I'm betting there's more to the FLDS case than we know. they'd been watching them for quite some time.

[JWSJ]

If there is evidence of abuse, why not just pickup the men of the community that are in question?

 

IMO, it makes little sense to tear each family member apart from each other?

 

I'm trying to find one good aspect to how CPS is handling this situation.

[melissel]

If there is evidence of abuse, why not just pickup the men of the community that are in question?

 

IMO, it makes little sense to tear each family member apart from each other?

 

I'm trying to find one good aspect to how CPS is handling this situation.

 

From what I've read, it sounds like there is some suggestion that the women may be considered complicit, to varying degrees, in some of the abuse that has occurred. It also sounds like some of the women were caught in lies, and that makes it very difficult for CPS to sort out what exactly is going on and who is perpetrating what. I'm also sure that there's more going on than we all know, and I'm even more certain that there are plenty of misstatements, half truths, and outright fabrications that the media are bandying about. It's impossible to really know what's happening. I'm trying to avoid the news where I can, because it's so heartbreaking all around. Like others have said, even the impact that the seeking of the news is having on these people is sickening :(

[Jenstet]

My understanding is that the Texas and Colorado FLDS people are related. They went back and forth. I thought the Texas compound was the more devout or more like ZION. I also read that things were not so "bad" until Warren Jeffs took over after his father died. By bad I mean more strict with the rules about laughing, TV and dress.

 

I can't help but think of Jonestown. Obviously a lot of those people were happy living in that situation, but some weren't. When it came to "drinking the Kool-aid" some people fought against it and some didn't. Were those people taken advantage of by a person in power who was sick? IMO Yes.

 

I guess the best/worst case scenario is that there are a few incidences of underage sex/preganancy. That the state has crossed the line by lumping everyone in together and that a lot of these mothers can be reunited with their children. However I can't help but think there must be some incest, molestation and other abuses taken place. I think I have said this before but Warren Jeffs has admitted to relations with his own daughter and that worries me. This man is like a God to these people. If this was standard practice no wonder the state stepped in. I think they have to protect the privacy of the children so it wouldn't suprise me if we don't have the whole story. On the other hand I am suprised we have seen footage and heard as much as we have.

My other line of thinking goes like this. The state gets some complaints about underage pregnancy and abuse. The state goes to investigate but are shut down. No cooperation whatsoever. So the state makes a statement by taking the kids out and disrupting their lives, bringing attention to the whole group. Kind of a "clean up your act" message to the FLDS. Who knows?

[beansprouts]

It also ticks me off that one can die for our country at 18 but can't buy a beer till 21. Change one of those ages!!!

 

 

No doubt! Would somebody please buy that soldier a beer??? :D

 

all that being said, I'm betting there's more to the FLDS case than we know. they'd been watching them for quite some time.

 

That's what I've been sayin'.

[Robin in Tx]

It just doesn't make sense to me that you should be allowed to decide to marry someone and then have sex with them, but not allowed to just have sex with them. What do others think?

 

 

This discussion reminds me of my best friend, who got pregnant at 15. Her boyfriend was 18. She was too young to get married in Texas so her parents drove them across the border where they could legally marry (either Louisiana or Arkansas). The boy wasn't treated as a rapist, although I guess legally he could have been. Her parents married at 15 and this didn't seem outrageous to them (country folk often marry very young).

 

You know, it's such a cultural thing. Children need to be protected from molestation and incenst and agressors, no doubt, but it is a gray area as far as I'm concerned... obviously God has readied their bodies for sexual attraction and reproduction, but we as a society are saying no, you are too young, you have to reach an emotional/mental maturity before you can act on your natural instincts. I don't want to turn this into a debate over early vs. later marriage, I'm just saying that there are clearly some advantages to young marriage and I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of our culture placing such value on "youth" to the point that we extend our youthful ways (behavior, expectations, etc.) well into adult years, and delay the "onset" of adulthood by as much as a decade or so. It's an interesting thing to think about.

 

Of course, this has nothing to do with any criminal allegations against FLDS including incest or molestation. But if a 16 year old girl in that group is willingly married to a young man and has become pregnant, I am hesitant to call that criminal. Only if it is forced or if it is incest.

[Scarlett]

Of course, this has nothing to do with any criminal allegations against FLDS including incest or molestation. But if a 16 year old girl in that group is willingly married to a young man and has become pregnant, I am hesitant to call that criminal. Only if it is forced or if it is incest.

 

I think that is the problem though....the underage girls aren't marrying 'young' men...the young men are being booted out of the compound and the older men are taking all the young girls for spiritual (gag) wives. There is a definite misuse of power going on.

[Robin in Tx]

I think that is the problem though....the underage girls aren't marrying 'young' men...the young men are being booted out of the compound and the older men are taking all the young girls for spiritual (gag) wives. There is a definite misuse of power going on.

 

You may be right... I really don't know enough about the situation. I just think they should be very, very careful about this. And I also agree with those who say that if it were the men who were commiting crimes, then they should have been picked up and interrogated and charges filed. I'm not so sure traumatizing all those little children was the high road, kwim? There's probably a lot we don't know... on both sides of this story.

[Cheryl in NM]

This discussion reminds me of my best friend, who got pregnant at 15. Her boyfriend was 18. She was too young to get married in Texas so her parents drove them across the border where they could legally marry (either Louisiana or Arkansas). The boy wasn't treated as a rapist, although I guess legally he could have been. Her parents married at 15 and this didn't seem outrageous to them (country folk often marry very young).

 

 

Can a 16 year old really consent to have sex with a 30year old, 40 year old, 50 or 60 year old? I think the consentual sex argument is that the girls really are "taken in" by older men is every part of society. A 16 year old doesn't have enough life experience to determine if a man of the above ages is who she wants to be with. Those older men are usually preying on the younger girl. Of course, consentual sex between 2 teenagers is a totally different story. Still immoral, but not necessarily abuse. IMHO.

[Cheryl in NM]

And I also agree with those who say that if it were the men who were commiting crimes, then they should have been picked up and interrogated and charges filed. I'm not so sure traumatizing all those little children was the high road, kwim? There's probably a lot we don't know... on both sides of this story.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: I don't care if these "men" were raised this way and indoctrinated when they were children. Once you become an adult you are responsible for your own baggage and the decision to do what's right. We all know that multiple wives is really not a good idea and we all know that having sex with children is wrong (and teenagers ARE children). We all know that forced marriage is wrong. That's why I say this is a case of religious persection. WE don't like the way THEY live so we look for an excuse to break it all up. Yes, there was abuse. Yes, it should be stopped and the perpetrators prosecuted. NO, there was NO reason to take all those little children from their families.

 

Of course, life many people have mentioned, we don't have all the details or facts.

[Robin in Tx]

Can a 16 year old really consent to have sex with a 30year old, 40 year old, 50 or 60 year old?

 

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... I was just speaking in generalities in response to the person who wanted to know what we thought about it being legal to marry and get pregnant as a 16yo, but not legal to have sex as a 16yo. I was speaking in generalities about that issue, not about the FLDS issue. I really don't know if girls there are being forced to marry and have sex against their will with 50 and 60 yo men. I know that's the allegation, but I've also heard that the original phone call was a hoax, etc., and that they really aren't finding all these teen girls who are pregnant or already mothers. I'm withholding judgement until we know for sure...

 

There is another group in Texas that is amish-like (some people call them in cult, I'm not so sure about that)... there is no polygamy, but there is a lot of early marriage and starting families young. They are an agrarian group who don't usually go to college, instead they "homestead"... I think they are free to leave when they grow up, but I'm pretty sure a lot of pressure is put on them to pursue their parent's values. I really worry that groups like them will get drug through the mud because of this situation. You know, it's okay to be different and "Little House on the Praire" like if you wish, and marry young, and live like the Amish if you want to. And children usually ARE raised to embrace their parent's values... we are free to raise our children to that end, thankfully... I am leery of govt deciding what is okay to teach our kids and what isn't... I just want to be careful that this doesn't open the door for the government to increase their power to regulate our personal lives. Again, if the men committed crimes, arrest and charge them. The drama of the last few days is nothing more than muscle flexing as far as I'm concerned, and has been terribly demeaning to the dignity of the children (and many of the mothers, I'm sure). Let's just heap abuse upon abuse why don't we?... yeah, whatever gets the public worked up into a frenzy so they'll support our stretching our arms out a little longer... (can you tell I'm very frustrated with the way the authorities and the media have handled this?)

[Kate in Arabia]

We all know that multiple wives is really not a good idea

 

I'll probably regret posting, lol, but I actually know several polygamous familes, some are very functional and some are very dysfunctional. Of those I know of in the States, they entered into this overseas in countries where it is more of a norm, and circumstances arose where they had to emigrate.

 

I will say that I don't think multiple wives is a good idea for me, personally, but if consenting, competent adults choose to do so and it works for them, imo, so be it. It is not something we are really accustomed to in our culture, but over the years I have found that there are different ideas about marriage in other cultures, and maybe even just among other people in our own culture.

 

I am also not 100% clear on how the law actually works in the US -- does the man have to try and legally marry two women, or is extended cohabitation enough? And if the second is the case, how is this then different from run-of-the-mill adultury, like long-term affairs?

 

I hope I don't need to make this disclaimer here, but I will anyway, that I 100% condemn forced marriage and/or the involvement of minors, I hope that goes without saying.

[Claire]

I am also not 100% clear on how the law actually works in the US -- does the man have to try and legally marry two women, or is extended cohabitation enough? And if the second is the case, how is this then different from run-of-the-mill adultury, like long-term affairs?

 

Polygamy is illegal in the U.S. only in very specific circumstances. Multiple legal marriages are not allowed, though, so to be legal the polygamy must not involve more than one marriage on the part of a spouse. Basically, it involves cohabitating with multiple people and really is not different from run-of-the-mill adultery in terms of prosecution; it won't be prosecuted. Here is a FAQ on polygamy in the U.S. that explains some of the legal fine points.

 

Here is an excerpt from that FAQ:

Federal law prohibits polygamy in the territories. Federal law also does not provide legal recognition of polygamy. It defines marriage as one man, and one woman.

 

The laws vary from state to state, but in general, if you do not ask for a marriage license from the state for your first (marriage), then you can cohabit with as many people as you like and it is not illegal. Bigamy and Adultery are only crimes for a married person, not for people who are living together. Some jurisdictions have laws against having unmarried sex, but they are never enforced.

 

In the FLDS case, there is no talk of prosecuting polygamy. CPS is involved because the allegations involve underage marriages, forced marriages of underage girls to older men, and possibly other forms of child abuse.

[Robin in Tx]

Of course, consentual sex between 2 teenagers is a totally different story. Still immoral, but not necessarily abuse. IMHO.

 

Something just dawned on me... one of the highly publicized prosecutions of the leader of this cult was for his involvement in a marriage between a 14yo girl and a 19yo boy. So yes, some of these *are* teenagers marrying young... that's only about one year's difference in age from my friend... she got pregnant only a few months after her 15th birthday. I am certain it wasn't their "first time" :). And the boy was out of high school, so 18/19 is right around the same age for him, too.

 

But still, if girls are being traded off like chattel to old men, that's very wrong. I hope that goes without saying.

[Peek a Boo]

obviously God has readied their bodies for sexual attraction and reproduction, but we as a society are saying no, you are too young, you have to reach an emotional/mental maturity before you can act on your natural instincts. I don't want to turn this into a debate over early vs. later marriage, I'm just saying that there are clearly some advantages to young marriage and I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of our culture placing such value on "youth" to the point that we extend our youthful ways (behavior, expectations, etc.) well into adult years, and delay the "onset" of adulthood by as much as a decade or so. It's an interesting thing to think about.

 

I think it's more that God "is in the process of readying" their bodies: just because we think we may be "ready" doesn't mean we should be acting on it. That's one thing that sets us apart from animals --our ability to make decisions for the long term that go against an initial feeling. There are plenty of medically known cautions about a teen pregnancy having long term adverse effects on a woman's body. Every year of development counts from that perspective.

 

We also have evidence that the brain itself is still developing quite a bit in its ability for decision-making, up to about....25?

 

Dysfunctional families do a world of hurt to society, so encouraging one to think long and hard about a situation can be quite a huge bit of wisdom.

 

We were reading up on the child bride situation on the other side of the globe --girls having [or dying while attempting to carry] children at 12, 13, 14....until after a few kids their body is SHOT --for other pregnancies and for work in general.

 

and like you, i think there's a lot involved in determining a younger marriage --esp if the parents/mentors [who hopefully have a LOT of years experience dealing w/ marriage difficulties and resolutions] can serve as an advisor or know warning signs to look for.

 

i don't think there's so much a "delay onset of adulthood' as much as 'let your brain catch up to your body while you live as an adult before making lifelong decisions" :)

[Robin in Tx]

I don't know, Peek... I really do think that our society overvalues extended adolescence. I would argue that our ability for decision making continues to mature throughout our entire lifetime. There's nothing wrong with younger couples doing some of that growing up together, or with teaching young couples that love and respect continue to grow in a marriage - you can't just wait until it's all there in perfect form - perfect maturity. And there's no guarantee that a later in life marriage will be less dysfunctional. That has more to do with how each partner was raised and what THEIR family dynamics are like - how they are taught to act in a marriage.

 

One of the most functional families I know, that I really look up and wish I had the privilege of experiencing, is a very tight knit, loving family that values adulthood, marriage and children. It is a large family where all the kids married (or at least were engaged) young... before finishing college... and they are all healthy, mature, adults with kids of their own who are all very mature, responsible kids. None of them are chasing after their lost youth, or struggling with not being grown up enough for the life they are living - they grew up *because* of the life they are living, and wouldn't have it any other way. They'd rather be a happily married adult in their early 20s than some idiot (their words not mine) like you see on shows like "Friends" who is perpetually trying to figure out who they are and what they want. The cultural difference between this family and the norm in America is startling. BTW, the parents of this family are Italian immigrants. They just don't buy into all the "20-year-olds aren't grown up" junk. Late teens and early 20 year olds are sure grown up in that family.. probably because they are expected to be grown up, and because they are treated like they are grown up. Not that they are finishing growing and becoming wiser, but they are READY for adulthood because they have been prepared for it. They would be totally embarrassed to be caught acting or treated like anything else. And I tell you what else... by the time they hit their 30s and 40s, they are a LOT more sure of themselves and wiser and happier and financially secure than the vast majority of their peers who are just then starting to think about getting serious about life. There is a certain about of maturity that a person can not attain until they have taken on the responsibility of a family. Delaying the start of that until the 30s only delays the onset of that level of maturity. Sure there are some idiots out there marrying young for the wrong reason... but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how culturally we do not "expect" our kids to outgrow their adolescence at an appropriate ate. Teenager is a new term... they used to be called young adults. I think we give kids up to the age of 25 carte blanche way too often to NOT grow up because there no external pressures or expectations placed on them. They act the part we expect of them quite well.

 

Rant over... sorry about all that! LOL

[Claire]

That girl testified in court that she didn't want the marriage and fought off the 19yo (unsuccessfully) in bed. That's not what I would call a typical teen marriage.

[Robin in Tx]

That girl testified in court that she didn't want the marriage and fought off the 19yo (unsuccessfully) in bed. That's not what I would call a typical teen marriage.

 

Okay, I didn't know that. If that is so, then I definitely stand corrected. No, not the same thing at all. I probably shouldn't make any more comments at the FLDS case because I'm really not up to speed on it, I've only heard snips here and there (and watched tons of footage of terrified children being bused like cattle to group homes in my area). It's just an awful situation all around, and I only hope the children's peace and joy can somehow be preserved and fostered in all of this...

 

Editing to add an afterthought... you know, that sort of thing should be illegal no matter the age. The fact that she was so young makes it seem worse, but really... forced marriage/rape would be pretty traumatic at 18 or 20 or any age. That should be prosecuted regardless of the age of the victim. I'm not so sure we should make this an "age of consent" issue... if this happens, it should be a rape/imprisonment thing, and a 18 year old victim should have just as much recourse as a 15 year old victim, kwim?

[Nestof3]

I don't care if these "men" were raised this way and indoctrinated when they were children. Once you become an adult you are responsible for your own baggage and the decision to do what's right. We all know that multiple wives is really not a good idea and we all know that having sex with children is wrong (and teenagers ARE children). We all know that forced marriage is wrong. That's why I say this is a case of religious persection. WE don't like the way THEY live so we look for an excuse to break it all up. Yes, there was abuse. Yes, it should be stopped and the perpetrators prosecuted. NO, there was NO reason to take all those little children from their families.

 

 

I agree. I was hinting that the women are given brains as well. They should know that they are in a messed up situation. Why is it that women are so quick to allow women to pull the ignorance trump card but not men? I see no difference. The mothers are just as guilty as the fathers.

 

Both the men and the women were brought up that this is just the way things work -- for whatever reasons. If the women can be brainwashed so much, why is no one saying the same about the men? I refuse to believe that women are dumber than men. Do you really believe that?

[Scarlett]

you know, that sort of thing should be illegal no matter the age. The fact that she was so young makes it seem worse, but really... forced marriage/rape would be pretty traumatic at 18 or 20 or any age. That should be prosecuted regardless of the age of the victim. I'm not so sure we should make this an "age of consent" issue... if this happens, it should be a rape/imprisonment thing, and a 18 year old victim should have just as much recourse as a 15 year old victim, kwim?

 

Good point.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know, Peek... I really do think that our society overvalues extended adolescence.

 

Late teens and early 20 year olds are sure grown up in that family.. probably because they are expected to be grown up, and because they are treated like they are grown up.

 

Delaying the start of that until the 30s only delays the onset of that level of maturity.

 

I think we give kids up to the age of 25 carte blanche way too often to NOT grow up because there no external pressures or expectations placed on them. They act the part we expect of them quite well.

 

I agree w/ your first statement -- it's akin to "child worship" and i think that does some a disservice also.

 

See, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be expecting teens [esp "late teens"] to *be ready* to act as adults in most situations, but I'm talking more about younger teens that are exhibiting "signs of readiness for reproduction"--13, 14, 15, 16....... I'm not saying that we need to not teach them anything adult-like until they hit 25, lol, only that we recognize the actual developmental milestones of a teen girl's body wrt pregnancy. And yeah, each person's body matures at a different rate but generally speaking, most girls are better off medically if they wait till they at least hit a better rate of maturity [whatever age that may be ;) ]

 

In the stuff I've studied, our *physical ability* to make decisions is fully developed at about 25. After that, our experience adds to any level of decision making: a collection of wisdom gleaned from experience vs completeness of physical development.

[Cheryl in NM]

I refuse to believe that women are dumber than men. Do you really believe that?

 

No, I said nothing of the kind. I said that once the men were adults and realized that having sex with young girls and forcing marriage was wrong they shouldn't have done it.

 

Of course, the mothers bear some responsibility, but I kind of view them as having a battered wife type syndrome. They didn't really know how to get out. These women are not taught how to make a living and be the breadwinner of their families. That is not an alien concept. It is, however, an alien concept for very mature adult males to have sex with teenagers and to force marriage. I believe the women are more victims than perpetrators because because of their gender role in society. Many women believe it is their God-given calling to stay home and raise their children. Too bad so many of them don't have the instincts to protect their daughters from those perverts.

 

I don't know, I think I'm a little lost on how to exactly feel and react about this situation also. It really makes you think, KWIM?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Too bad so many of them don't have the instincts to protect their daughters from those perverts.

 

I don't know, I think I'm a little lost on how to exactly feel and react about this situation also. It really makes you think, KWIM?

 

 

I think it's possible that they have (or initially had) the instincts, but not the tools, kwim?

 

I agree with the last part. It's terribly complicated.

 

ETA: Not that I didn't agree with the first part, just that I especially agree with the last part. :-)

[*anj*]

I just think it's a huge mess and further evidence that we don't act in a vacuum. Our choices are interconnected in ways we don't even realize. I think that when we compare this situation to "your average 16yo who gets pregnant/crosses state line to marry/etc." it's like comparing steak to peanuts. They're both protein, but they are totally different in substance. This FLDS situation (and others like it) are examples of systemic abuse. The abuse runs all the way through the "family." That's why I said that we are interconnected so deeply. In this case generations of boys and girls later became men and women who believe that it is morally acceptable for a middle aged man to insist that a teenage girl marry him.

 

And now we have a situation where there are over 400 children living like refugees, longing for their mothers, but their mothers might not be safe people for them to be around, so those over 1 year old have to live with strangers, and the mothers are on tv begging for their children back, and not a single one of these so called men is actually man enough to step up and say something and whose fault is that?

It's like a plate of spaghetti.

 

I'm going to bed now. The warm milk is kicking in and I'm not even making sense. I will probably need to delete this tomorrow.

[Robin in Tx]

I think that when we compare this situation to "your average 16yo who gets pregnant/crosses state line to marry/etc." it's like comparing steak to peanuts.

 

For the record, that's not what I was doing... someone asked in this thread what we thought (in general) about it being legal to marry younger than 18 and produce a baby, but it's not legal to have sex outside of marriage when younger than 18. That is the part of the discussion I was referring to when I said it reminded me of my friend. In one court, the boyfriend was considered her husband and in another he would have been charged for statutory rape. I think I said this elsewhere, but I think I need to say it again... that little rabbit trail really had nothing directly to do with the FLDS situation. In hindsight, I think perhaps that particular bunny trail should have had its own thread.

 

Otherwise, I agree about it being a plate of spaghetti.

[Robin in Tx]

I'm not saying that we need to not teach them anything adult-like until they hit 25.

 

Yes... and I'm certainly not advocating marriage at 15, either!! LOL I just think that when a girl is around 16 or 17, she is a LOT closer to being fully adult in my eyes than she is in the eyes of our culture.

 

I realize there is no magic age, and probably mid twenties is a good age for the END of the spectrum (EVERYONE should be fully grown up by then... it's not like 25 should be the average age, with some grown up by 20 and others by 30).

[Mekanamom]

Yes... and I'm certainly not advocating marriage at 15, either!! LOL I just think that when a girl is around 16 or 17, she is a LOT closer to being fully adult in my eyes than she is in the eyes of our culture.

 

I realize there is no magic age, and probably mid twenties is a good age for the END of the spectrum (EVERYONE should be fully grown up by then... it's not like 25 should be the average age, with some grown up by 20 and others by 30).

 

Well, younger girls are easier to manipulate.

 

But I hear what you're saying too. I was advised by a religious figure to get married at age 17, before I had even graduated high school. (Edited to add: No, I was not pregnant!! He had no reason to say this to me other than simple "policy" as far as I know.) I was smart enough even at that age to recognize that advice as "very bad", even coming form a "highly respected" church authority. (Actually, I was told he was receiving this inspiration directly from God. Didn't believe that part either.)

 

I hardly ever think about that experience, but this flds thing has dredged it back up.

 

This next part is in response to the thread in general- not just the poster I am replying to. ;)

 

What IF... what if it wasn't just this one church leader, but ALL of them telling me this? What if my parents and all my friends & relatives said the same thing? If I had no outside contact with people who lived differently? If I was told over and over that by becoming wife # "whatever" it was the only way to heavenly paradise? Probably the older the patriarch, the better status, too.

 

I might think it was normal. KWIM?

 

I think the mothers DO have protective instincts. I think they think (if they believe in their religious teachings) that they are protecting their girls by marrying them off to worthy men who will get them into heaven. This is the part that makes me believe this IS a cult, and they ARE brainwashed.

 

I don't know how they justify tossing out the boys.

 

Edited again: I don't think the women are less intelligent than the men at all. The men are in the same boat, assuming they believe in their religious teachings. BUT, the religion does teach women to be subservient to the men. The men have the power. I think that's the reason the men are blamed more than the women. They hold the role of authority.

[Harriet Vane]

These kinds of rules from CPS are dumb. I don't see why CPS thinks temporarily removing a child from a home while they complete an investigation for 6 to 18 months is a risk-free action that's fine to do if someone is only "at risk" of being abused. Removal from home is traumatic for kids and families. Why risk causing worse pain than you are trying to prevent?

 

If one child in a family has been abused, it is statistically almost probable that others in the home are abused as well. Child abuse is a problem that is systemic, not individual. Google it. Read some case histories. The rules about protecting ALL the children in the family are there specifically because it is almost NEVER the case that one child and not others within a family unit were abused.

[Harriet Vane]

Sara R, you said:

 

These kinds of rules from CPS are dumb. I don't see why CPS thinks temporarily removing a child from a home while they complete an investigation for 6 to 18 months is a risk-free action that's fine to do if someone is only "at risk" of being abused. Removal from home is traumatic for kids and families. Why risk causing worse pain than you are trying to prevent?

 

My response:

 

I have to object. These rules are NOT dumb.

 

If one child in a family has been abused, it is statistically almost probable that others in the home are abused as well. Child abuse is a problem that is systemic, not individual. Google it. Read some case histories. The rules about protecting ALL the children in the family are there specifically because it is almost NEVER the case that one child and not others within a family unit were abused.

[Sara R]

Sara R, you said:

 

These kinds of rules from CPS are dumb. I don't see why CPS thinks temporarily removing a child from a home while they complete an investigation for 6 to 18 months is a risk-free action that's fine to do if someone is only "at risk" of being abused. Removal from home is traumatic for kids and families. Why risk causing worse pain than you are trying to prevent?

 

My response:

 

I have to object. These rules are NOT dumb.

 

I'm just saying that CPS never considers that the very act of removing a child from home is normally experienced by the child as "abusive." So, CPS ought to weigh the certainty of distress experienced by the child due to CPS removing him from the home, versus the "risk" of future abuse. There is lots of abuse that goes on in foster homes too, and plenty of "risk" of abuse there because they are dealing with children under stress who are more likely to act out.

[Scarlett]

I'm just saying that CPS never considers that the very act of removing a child from home is normally experienced by the child as "abusive." So, CPS ought to weigh the certainty of distress experienced by the child due to CPS removing him from the home, versus the "risk" of future abuse. There is lots of abuse that goes on in foster homes too, and plenty of "risk" of abuse there because they are dealing with children under stress who are more likely to act out.

 

It is my understanding that these childen are being housed in groups and not being placed in traditional foster homes. I saw Carolyn Jessup talking about how when she was in that group the children bonded more to each other than to their bio mother or father. She said they had to call all their father's wives 'mother whatever'. Even her own children called her Mother Carolyn. So I think in that sense these children, although surely feeling out of their element, at least have each other.

 

All across this country ever day, children are removed from homes where the father or some other man in the home is the abuser. The mother is told that if she will arrange living conditions where that man will not have contact with the children then she may have her children back. In this case, the mothers are unable or unwilling to do that. I hope the state will offer them safe haven to keep their kids, although I think it will be difficult for the authorities to know if the women can be trusted because they are very brainwashed IMO.