Yes, I'm 21

No, really....

Trust me...ask dad....

Bruce Jenner is Kendall Jenner's father, and she's 14.

I picked the first photo because, well, she's perfect. Frankly it's a little harder to believe she's older in the heavily made up and more than slightly slutty second picture. To be blunt, another half inch to the right on that top and we'd be in the pure porn category.

At 14.

I've been raked over the coals for suggesting that some girls are "ready" for marriage at 13 and Kendell here is....14.

Question:

If Kendell goes out with a guy, say a 21 year old guy and he has "carnal knowledge" of her, is Bruce Jenner, her father, an accomplice to rape for encouraging it, like Warren Jeffs supposedly is?

I'm not pulling any punches on how attractive she seems to be for the simple reason that I don't think any guy would look at that first picture and see anything but a young adult. In today's world that has real consequences.

In the second picture she actually looks younger, I think it's the effect of all that make up, she doesn't wear it well but that's clearly the "Come hither" look, wouldn't you say?

Nothing excuses bad behavior on the part of any man. Nothing here is an invitation to bad or illegal behavior either. I'm a proponent of parental permission so I'd be asking Kendall for Daddy's phone number first.

At least Bruce had the sense NOT to appear with her.

Why pick 21 for a mythical age instead of 18? Kendall Jenner models for "Forever 21" magazine.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

If the First Amendment isn't for the FLDS, it isn't for any of us.

Dr. Stephen Smith has twice made controversial comments (in his community) regarding the YFZ raid. Not one to let sleeping dogs lie, he goes back to bat, on their behalf:

"I’m going out on a limb here, taking a stab at a sensitive subject. The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free exercise of practicing a religion. Whether we like it and agree with it or not, there is a large and persistent group of people who call themselves the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints trying to practice what they preach in their religion.

I have never stated that I agree with their religion. I don’t. But that is not the issue. The issue is: Do I want to defend their right to practice their religion? Yes I do. Because I would hope someone would defend me as I practice my personal religion and relationship with God as I understand God.

There are some hypercritical patriots in San Angelo who insist their God is bigger than my God. There was a German a few years back who thought his God was bigger than other people’s God. He mortified the world by incinerating and killing via other hideous methods millions of Jews because of their religious beliefs. Our country stopped everything it was doing in the 1940s to prevent this man from getting his way.

Now we are doing the same thing to the FLDS living in Schleicher County, only we’re decent enough not to turn them into potash because we call ourselves more civilized. The issue for many is a disgusting and pathetic need to be more concerned with trivial behaviors in our society at large, such as what Tiger Woods is doing with his genitals rather than helping my neighbor who is starving or being beaten by an abusive spouse.

More than one so-called Christian has told me that the FLDS just uses its religion as an excuse to practice pedophilia. Well, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Until you go to the FLDS ranch in Eldorado as I have and see the simple and beautiful world they have created then you are showing how ignorant you can be to make any assumptions.

Again, I do not agree with everything the FLDS believes in. That is not the point. I do agree with their freedom to believe that adolescent girls having babies is one aspect of their religion that gives them favor with God.

I am not the one to persecute them. And no human being can deny that God created humans to be capable of having children in our teenage years. It is a biological fact of nature. Until just a few years ago when our society ruled it inappropriate, adolescent girls having babies has been the norm rather than the exception since the beginning of time.

The world behind the FLDS fences they have built to keep us out (and I don’t blame them) is surreal. It is beautiful. It is soft. Their lifestyle is an attempt to be loving and takes one back to a time when life was pure and innocent.

It is true that some have left the Mormon tradition and written books against such practices, but so have some Christians. Could not our own children write ghastly books about their parents and religious leaders as well? Of course they could.

But standard Christians don’t want to admit that we have a frightfully high teen pregnancy rate. We don’t want to admit that our divorce rate hovers around 50 percent all the time and would likely be more if some couples had the courage to end dysfunctional relationships. We don’t want to see that our prisons are full of drunkards and druggies and hobos because we aren’t willing to care for each other the way Jesus commissioned us to care.

We are the ones who have created a culture where it is not wise for adolescent girls to have babies (and I agree). We are the ones who carry emotional baggage from our pasts that creates pathological views of human sexuality. We are the ones who can’t get past our inhibitions, our fears and our demons that would allow us to treat others with love and compassion.

When asked which of the Ten Commandments was greatest, Jesus said, 'Love your God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself' (Matthew 22:36-39). In my way of thinking, the latter command includes any and all neighbors however radically different they might be from ourselves.

Dang, I wish Jesus hadn’t said that because it really is hard to love anybody different from us.

Contrary to what I was quoted as saying in the Standard-Times on Dec. 10, I do not believe that laws should be changed so older men can have sex with younger girls. What I did say was that perhaps we need to pause and rethink how we can legally accommodate and respect the FLDS in their practice of religion.

Now, I’ll just sit quietly and wait for the rocks and hope those without sin will be the ones to cast the first stones."

The San Angelo Standard-Times, also has the courage to print his column. Dr. Stephen Smith is a San Angelo physician. There is more to his column, please go to the Standard Times site, and read it for yourself.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Mark Henkel & Gretchen Carlson on John Stossell

It's a clear win for Mark. Mark and I DO NOT get along, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

It's unfortunate that no one in the room on the pro polygamy side understands that it needs more than "decriminalization." Again, you do not HAVE to get legally married to understand why being ABLE to be legally married helps you.

Decriminalization means it won't be a felony but it's still against the law. The fact that you can essentially get a parking ticket for too many people in the bedroom means that the police have a right to enter your bedroom.

Ms. Carlson makes the lame excuse (for an apparent conservative) that the polygamist family will have tax advantages. I keep telling people, as long as we have an income tax, and particularly a progressive income tax system (which we have), the government is always going to stay in the arena of marriage. You want marriage off the books? Get rid of the income tax. Completely. All vestiges of it. THEN you have a shot.

That and you'll have to get government out of the business of defining pedophilia. This is an UGLY truth because we are so twisted around and phobic as Christians of a "Crime" or "Sin" that isn't even a sin in scripture that we react with blind feeling. Perhaps a compromise can be reached with marriages to minors involving court consent and licensing. Until then though, government has entered the room in the marriage discussion, and it isn't leaving.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

That's a peach! No, that would be Impeach.

Brazzil Magazine - "Mayara Tavares is 16 and lives in the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil."

Both men appear to look in the video of the incident though if Obama really does, he more or less steals a sly look. She's 16 gentlemen. That's impeach, not a peach.

You Decide.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Red Herring - "Pedophilia is not a religion"

Allegedly said by Representative Drew Darby of Texas.

I have this to observe. I know of NO RELIGION, particularly those of Judeo Christian origin, that define pedophilia. This has always been a matter of law. The thorny problem this presents for people who rabidly shake the finger and foam at the mouth over the horrible crime of pedophilia, is that it is just that, a crime.

Without the strength of law behind it, it would be no crime at all, and my religion (which is not FLDS or LDS or any of it's offshoots) does not forbid it. I'm sure a lot of you will begin to spit and speak at the audacity of this and drown your keyboards in saliva while you attempt to bang out an impassioned response, but it's nonetheless true.

The insulation from the acts we term "pedophilia" are the right of parents, and our concerns for children and the sanctity of marriage. Even society says no pedophilia occurs inside marriage, and as Willie Jessop so correctly pointed out, and as the Motion to Suppress correctly points out, marriage can occur down to three years of age. Even in Texas.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Crusty does the research on "Underage Marriage"

Hey Kids! See what your Uncle Crusty has done!

From Crusty Logic - "The data indicated relative stability in ages from about 1350 to the early 1800’s. Around 1820 the upper age began to increase.

During the mid 18^th century there appeared to be a very noted temporary increase in bridal ages of those people in southern Europe. Not sure what the cause of this was. This drove up the upper end of the range but had only minimal impact on the overall average.

The two most significant jumps occurred in the quarter century ending in 1825 when the average age rose from 15.6 to 17 and in the quarter century ending in 2000 when the average age rose from 20 to 24.5.

The average age of all marriages from the genealogical data is 16.38. The lower age range dipped below 13 in the quarter centuries ending in 1425, 1500, 1550, 1675, and 1700."

It's a lot more interesting to read the whole thing and realize what a bunch of moralistic prudes we have become. I too note that in todays world marrying early for girls is a bit problematic but we're swimming seriously upstream trying to alter the natural order of things, and we're fooling ourselves, aren't we, to think we can legislate morality?

Do "Bible Believing" Christians actually think we are "progressing?" Scripture says there is nothing new under the sun, so armed with these statistics and a realization that the Bible you say you believe doesn't address the topic, where does that leave you?

Follow the link and read.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Further discussion of the uncomfortable subject of Old Men and Young Girls.

A lot is said about the primary function of marriage as being for the purpose of raising a family and of having children. The elephant in the room is the reality of declining fertility and rising rates of birth defects. First the birth defect angle, quoting from Wikipedia.

"Birth defects, especially those involving chromosome number and arrangement, also increase with the age of the mother. According to the March of Dimes, 'At age 25, a woman has about a 1-in-1,250 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; at age 30, a 1-in-1,000 chance; at age 35, a 1-in-400 chance; at age 40, a 1-in-100 chance; and at 45, a 1-in-30 chance.'"

No one wants to whelp a monster. I would love a child of mine that was so burdened, but no one wishes for such an occurrence. As a man seeking a wife with whom one of my primary functions would be to reproduce and form a family, who would I select? Society tells me to pick a professional woman who has unfortunately passed her fertility prime. Who has unfortunately fallen in all likelihood from the ranks of the chaste. All these things fly in the face of what God tells us and his apparent design. "Be fruitful, and multiply" saith the LORD, not "find a professional wife and postpone fertility."

We now have more expansive definitions of abuse. Suppose that I take a fertile woman nearer my own age, if she is 45 I forgo the greater number of children, the greater number of chances to have them and I increase the chances that they will be sickly. If I have four children with a woman over 40, I keep her pregnant most of her fifth decade and the chances are greater than even that I will produce at least one child with downs syndrome. That's a one in six chance of that defect, 4 kids. Statistics say if I have six kids at that age for a mother, one will be downs, so if I have three or four, I've got a better than 50/50 chance. Am I not abusive by some measure to seek to bring defective children into the world? Abusive to them, abusive to future generations and so on? That's one way of looking at it.

Next, let's address the fertility curve itself;

"Women's fertility peaks around the age of 19-24, and often declines after 30."

If I want children, as a man, (and God knows and tells us I SHOULD) who do I pick? From a functional standpoint, again wishing to pick the chaste girl, not the "experienced" one, I pick someone on the upswing. Frankly without the clucking of society factored in I pick a girl BEFORE she's 19, that way I enjoy the most fertile years of her life with her healthiest children. Unless you go to the wife store and pick one off the shelf as she's approaching peak freshness, where do I find this 19-24 with which to have the largest number of healthy children? Um, that would be 18 or under.

If we pursue a goal involving some compatibility for the emotional welfare of that girl whom we intend to take as wife, plans are getting in gear a little sooner than the wedding day. I'm sure Dad wants to get to know ME, I'm sure SHE wants to get to know me, and so on.

This all goes to the question of where does a man find a WIFE? A wife in the TRADITIONAL sense, for after all, the Apostle Paul says;

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

That does PRIORITIZE having children, doesn't it? It does so not as a detriment to women, but as a BENEFIT to them. Don't I help my wife in a general sense by causing her to have children?

Men and women are so very much different. If you look at the curve for men's fertility it does not go into the steep decline that women experience.

"Sperm count declines with age, with men aged 50-80 years producing sperm at an average rate of 75% compared with men aged 20-50 years. However, an even larger difference is seen in how many of the seminiferous tubules in the testes contain mature sperm;

* In males 20-39 years old, 90% of the seminiferous tubules contain mature sperm.
* In males 40-69 years old, 50% of the seminiferous tubules contain mature sperm.
* In males 80 years old and older, 10% of the seminiferous tubules contain mature sperm.

This does not directly correlate with any absolute decline in fertility, since there are still many sperm cells left for fertilization."

To put it another way, the only swimmers that win the race are the healthy ones. I drop my odds a little by being older, but I still have mature seed that can run the race and achieve the goal. Furthermore, they're young in relative terms. My 20 year old wife in this hypothetical has older seed than I do.

Thank you Captain Obvious, what we have just reiterated here is that men can go on having children successfully into their 90's. Women hit the top of the baby roller coaster while still teens and peak while very young, most quitting altogether shortly after they turn 40. We knew that you say. But I say you're in denial. This is the Elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.

Those of us who believe the Bible is historic truth have no choice but to understand the implication of design. Women are meant to marry YOUNG. They mature physically faster than boys do. Generally in grade school we notice the girls get taller, start getting interested in boys sooner than we did. The first girl I was romantically serious about when I was 13 was eye level with me at that age. Years later when I saw her again, she was SHORT. In the sex sweepstakes she blew past me at warp speed and got where she was going a long time before I did.

This also shows up in promiscuity statistics that I mentioned earlier in the blog. When girls and boys fornicate, it's shown that at least in these days and times, girls start earlier than boys do and get a jump on them in that category. That's not an endorsement, just an observation. Boys catch up later, but it's just another one of those reality markers about how we were designed. The vocation of women is child bearing. God tells us that, design bears this out. There are exceptions, but that's the general reality. They get there in a hurry as well. They're best for it for a rather narrow window.

Men get there later, and have a longer window of opportunity. Now, those of you who sign on to intelligent design (as I do), what does that tell you?

Are we conforming to the world or are we informing it? By consenting to the idea that we should raise ages of marriage/consent in the law, and by inserting an age differential factor, are we not saying no to God's plan, and yes to a worldly one? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Addressing the issue of Pedophilia, AGAIN.

I get maneuvered regularly into telling the truth. Then what I say is both routinely and immediately distorted. This is not an uncommon practice among people, but it is wrong. Let's examine something a "friend" of mine, "Mary Contrary" said in a forum. She's not unique in this accusation but it's one of the more recent assertions along these lines.

"Which...interestingly...reminds me of Prakk (that's me folks). It took him forever to come right out and say he'd marry and bed an 11 year old girl, didn't it?"

I will offer this article as the beginning of my refutation. First I recommend that all pedophiles and those with "porn" problems not go to the link as it depicts a fully nude 5 year old in a grainy black and white photograph. She is nude in profile in a picture taken by her doctor to document her condition, and her technical "sexual maturity." Having said that, From Wikipedia.

"Lina Medina (born September 27, 1933) is the youngest confirmed mother in medical history, giving birth at the age of 5 years, 7 months and 21 days.

Born in Peru, Lina was brought to a hospital by her parents at the age of 5 years because of increasing abdominal size. She was originally thought to have had a tumor, but her doctors determined she was in her seventh month of pregnancy. Dr. Gerardo Lozada took her to Lima, Peru, prior to the surgery to have other specialists confirm that Lina was in fact pregnant. A month and a half later, on May 14, 1939, she gave birth to a boy by a caesarean section necessitated by her small pelvis. The surgery was performed by Dr. Lozada and Dr. Busalleu, with Dr. Colretta providing anaesthesia. Her case was reported in detail by Dr. Edmundo Escomel to La Presse Medicale, along with the additional details that her menarche had occurred at 8 months of age (or 2 1/2 according to a different article), and that she had had prominent breast development by the age of 4. By age 5 her figure displayed pelvic widening and advanced bone maturation."

Quite simply, though 11 is an unusual age for full sexual maturity, it's almost twice the age at which some girls begin to become sexually mature. The next case is more recent, but not isolated. From the Daily Mail.

"A girl is to become Britain's youngest mother after becoming pregnant at 11.

The girl smokes 20 cigarettes a day despite being eight months' pregnant. She conceived aged 11 when she lost her virginity to a boy of 15 on a drunken night out with friends.

The 15-year-old has since been charged with rape by police, and is due to appear again at Edinburgh sheriff court on July 10.

Her 34-year-old mother, who gave birth to her youngest child eight months ago, said she was 'proud' of her daughter.

She will be 12 years and 8 months when she has the child next month. Jenny Teague, Britain's youngest mother until now, was a month older when she gave birth in 1997."

Well alrighty then. Here we have a context for what I am about to say. We know that in Bible times some children were betrothed very early in their lives. It was an entirely moral practice. Biblically though, betrothal was marriage in all ways except one. The bride and groom were not expected to become sex partners right away. There was a wedding feast later where the bride and groom were given to one another. Many years may have passed between the betrothal (which required divorce to end) and the wedding feast, the demarcation point for the beginning of sexual relations. Passages in Corinthians and Song of Songs (Solomon) indicate that physical signs of sexual maturity determined when the wedding feast should occur. This of course was left up to the judgment of the betrothing parties. Parents.

I advocate for parental permission for all marriage to take place, I think this is also Biblical. This then is the context of my remarks on the earliest age for possible marriage. The Bible has no set age standard for onset of sexual relations. It speaks of betrothal which we know often took place very early. We know from example that meant marriage, but did not mean immediate sex. Sex came after the wedding feast and depended on sexual maturity and parental permission. Scripturally we must also admit that sexual relations should only take place in the context of a husband/wife relationship though in special circumstances sex would immediately create that relationship.

I am a simple advocate of the idea then that the Bible supports the notion that parents decide. I also believe that as a mechanism for preserving a child's health both mental and physical, a Biblically knowledgeable set of parents would do better than the state, or a law. That's the long and short of it right there. I think there would be fewer instances of what the law calls pedophilia if we were all Bible Reading and Bible Believing Christians, than there are cases of pedophilia now. I would think this even if all such laws were immediately canceled. To phrase that another way for clarity, if the law prevents sex with young girls and there were no such law, the incidence of such activity would be less under my system anyway.

Now, would I marry an 11 year old and bed her? I can envision the following set of circumstances. An extremely precocious 11 year old. By this I mean well developed mentally and spiritually. Me being available for marriage. At this point I don't think I'm a good choice for anyone to marry so I'm out of the market. Parental permission. The father of the 11 year old would have to give permission. I would imagine that would mean I had been betrothed to her earlier in fact. Upon the advent of her 11th birthday, it would in fact be POSSIBLE for her to be ready. I can thus string together a set of circumstances in which I can see the possible path opening up. It's certainly legal somewhere on the planet for me to do this as well.

I neither desire this, nor do I anticipate it nor do I seek it. It's simply possible. Similar possible things are, there will be a manned flight to Mars in my lifetime and I'll be on it. That by the way, I would actually WANT to do. It is also possible for me to go out and buy a $1.00 lotto ticket and become insanely wealthy by the next drawing. It's debatable as to whether the lotto ticket and the manned mission to Mars including me are more likely than the 11 year old bride.

Next, there is the existing legal context. Laws are changing as we speak so I'll just say this. If a thing be genuinely illegal then I, as a Christian am obligated to follow the law. If the law sets age limits for marriage then I am to follow them. There is no need whatsoever for anyone to ever marry at all, not at 11, 14, or 33. Since that is the case there is no wrong in following a law that would restrict entirely moral but optional activities, such as marrying at 11.

Right now though you may be surprised to learn that it is possible for an older man to legally marry much younger girls, such as all those who are alleged to have been pregnant at the YFZ ranch in Texas. Texas is in fact marrying 14 year olds right now under their existing law. This means that the worst thing a man might do in taking a 14 year old bride is to drive without a license plate on his car. Texas does nothing to bar male genitalia from invading 13 year old vaginas. Sorry, but it simply does not. What it bars is parking mine in such a venue without the benefit of legal marriage. Hence the association of Polygamy and Pedophilia. Since what they do is entirely legal after a certain age, namely sex and cohabitation, the only thing we've done is protect a 13 year old from a POLYGNOUS marriage to an older man, she is hardly protected from monogamous marriage to an older man or fornicating 14 year old boys.

More →

Sphere: Related Content