…and this is a 
Why are little girls always the target?
Category: Evil • Religion
Posted on: April 13, 2008 11:25 AM, by PZ Myers
Here, let me ruin your morning, just in case you hadn't already heard the story of this raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
A raid was finally triggered April 3, after a family violence shelter received a hushed phone call from a terrified 16-year-old girl saying her 50-year-old husband had beaten and raped her.
State troopers put into action the plan they had on the shelf to enter the compound, and 416 children, most of them girls, were swept into state custody on suspicions that they were being sexually and physically abused.
Doran said it was not until after the raid began that he learned that the sect was, in fact, marrying off underage girls at the compound and had a bed in its soaring limestone temple where the girls were required to immediately consummate their marriages. Also, investigators said a number of teenage girls there are pregnant.
I think "fundamentalist" has become a synonym for "misogynistic pedophile".
Comments
LDS...come to pappa.
Posted by: danley | April 13, 2008 11:31 AM
"I think "fundamentalist" has become a synonym for "misogynistic pedophile"."
Bill Maher took it even a step further in a recent New Rules segment. Whenever someone says that Pharynguloids are the 'extreme fringe' when it comes to anti-religious views, one should point them at this clip!
Posted by: gg | April 13, 2008 11:36 AM
I'm starting to think some christians are trying to prove their beliefs correct by creating hell on earth.
Posted by: Ted D | April 13, 2008 11:37 AM
Pmomma has been bloging about this for a few days makes me really sad to think of what happened and is still happening to these girls and the women still living there and in other compounds around the world i think there are some up here in Canada hiding in BC. I wish there was someway to help its good that they are free of the place for now but the long term psychological and emotional problems they will have to face just makes it worse.
Sorry I'm just depressed and saddened by the horrible things people do in the name of an all "loving" god, and we are the ones to cause so much problems with our curse of atheism.
Here's hope that some hugs will make it just a little better
Nicki
Nicki
Posted by: NIcki | April 13, 2008 11:37 AM
Misogynistic certainly, abuse most definitely, and abhorrent without a doubt, though I'm not sure it really qualifies as pedophelia. Sure, the girls are underage, not yet ready to cope with marriage or any sort of physical relationship with someone many decades their senior, but a 16 year old girl has most likely physically matured and gone through puberty. Not that this in any way makes what this cult did any less disgusting or sickening, but the basic sexual attraction to someone who is sexually mature is not truly pedophelia.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 11:38 AM
Unfair!
There may be a large overlap but I doubt either is a subset of the other.
In the records of convicted misogynistic paedophiles, is there a record made of religion? Is the proportion of fundamentalists higher (or lower) in that population than in the general population? It's a fair question but I don't think you have the answer handy and, like I said, I doubt it's 100%.
Posted by: Bob Dowling | April 13, 2008 11:42 AM
Hard to miss this sterling example of a yet another wacko religious cult.
I read somewhere that one of the women is 16 and has 4 children. Do the math, she was probably married off at 12.
Some of the women have huge numbers of kids, one had 12.
So where does the money come from to support hundreds of people in the west Texas desert? In Utah, the state did a study once of their Colorado city center and discovered that somewhere between 80 and 90% of the residents were receiving federal and state welfare. These are remote areas where jobs are few and far between. IIRC, the state of Utah wasn't too pleased to be supporting thousands of cultists procreating like rabbits. Not sure if they could or did anything about it though.
Posted by: raven | April 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Those people are out to lunch. This extremely large group that uses this blog I suspect is pretty mainstream given the range of topics discussed here.
Posted by: JimC | April 13, 2008 11:44 AM
Also equally saddening is the fact that such behavior (marrying girls off as soon as they hit puberty, or sometimes even before) has not been historically uncommon at all.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 11:47 AM
Ah, but it's an absolute morality imposed from the top, and it doesn't depend on whether or not any individuals underneath like it. So it's not arbitrary, like secular systems. You can't argue with God. On the contrary, we were sent to earth to learn habits of obedience.
In his speech to the FFRF (now available in Freethought Today) Christopher Hitchens points out that most religions contain an element which is neither moral nor defensible -- "an implicit appeal to the totalitarian."
"The origins of totalitarianism, our greatest enemy, lie in this. We're told that we wouldn't know a right from wrong action, wouldn't be able to tell, let alone perform one, if we were not already the property of a celestial dictator, whom we must love and fear at the same time." -- C. Hitchens
Posted by: Sastra | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM
To put this in perspective. Utah has between 30,000 and 50,000 polygamists and that number is increasing rapidly as they procreate like rabbits.
The polygamists are divided into various cults and used to shoot it out among themselves and shoot it out with the cops.
They are also very inbred. It isn't like too many people are interesting in joining a wacko cult and living in the middle of nowhere.
Posted by: raven | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM
This particular sect also mistreats boys. This is an older article about the same sect:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/14/usa.julianborger
Posted by: ck1 | April 13, 2008 11:53 AM
Why is it always little girls that are targeted? Because they lack both physical (little) and social (girl) power. Easy for the big bully on top to pick on -- and a way for men to influence the female hierarchy, go figure!
Also, attraction to adolescents = ephebophilia.
Posted by: octopod | April 13, 2008 11:53 AM
Do you find something morally amiss with the very idea of polygamy itself (when all parties are consenting adults, at least), or just the crazy superstitions and social stays they subscribe to?
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 11:53 AM
For one ex-cult member's story, see:
http://fora.tv/2007/12/05/Carolyn_Jessop_on_her_Escape_from_the_FLDS
Posted by: GBruno | April 13, 2008 11:57 AM
The use of the term ephebophilia is absurd, considering the only difference between adults and an adolescent who has gone through puberty is their mental and emotional maturity. Both post-pubescent adolescents and adults have physically reached adulthood, attraction to physically maturity is not any sort of 'deviation'.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 11:57 AM
There are two things most blatant here: Males and religion. Separately they are equally pernicious; together they are extremely dangerous. It is always the females that suffer at the hands of the freaking males. As a character in Opus (not Opus, but a female) put it,"The male is an evolutionary aberration." Ponder it all: Wars, murders, rapes, child molestation(male priests, not female nuns), majority of assaults, pornography, prostitution, most vandalism, urinating in public, fetishism, perversions, exposing themselves in public, spitting all over the place, most broken marriages, being brought down by a female liasion(Spitzer, et al), most embezzlements, having a hand in making females go bad(there were two males present at the beating of that 16 year old girl and I bet he urged them on to the whole nasty thing), males are more apt to be hygenically repulsive, more ready to make overt and sexual inuendos in any manner and place, and a list of so many more instances that render the male
the slime of the sexes. Heck, it's not cancer that kills most females, it's the freaking male. Think about it.
Posted by: Holbach | April 13, 2008 11:58 AM
*physical maturity, not physically, woops.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 11:59 AM
Why are little girls always the target?
Because who would want to rape fat ugly old men?
Sorry if that sounds a little facetious, but it's rather like the question "Why do you rob banks, Willy?" "Cause that's where the money is". (Willy Sutton)
It's also wrong. Little boys are often targets. Women are targets, the vulnerable are targets, the gullible are targets.
Posted by: Quidam | April 13, 2008 12:00 PM
#14: The "consenting adults" part is the crucial difference for me.
Posted by: Sharon | April 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted by: Kaerion | April 13, 2008 12:02 PM
Why are little girls always the target?
Because access to young, fertile females is a high status benefit, and a hierarchal top-down moral system based on the authority of "ownership" will always tend to award the best or most females to the dominant alpha males. He who controls sex controls the community.
If you don't like this, you need to look for moral systems which are built from the bottom up, where individuals collectively grant authority by their consent. For some reason, fundamentalist Christianity often has problems with this. Maybe it's that "Jesus is LORD" and "God is our RULER" thing, drummed into the young. It's the wrong attitude.
Hey -- who made God the king of the universe, anyway? I know I didn't vote for him.
Posted by: Sastra | April 13, 2008 12:08 PM
They're married off and supposed to start producing children between the ages of 10-13, basically as soon as they start to have periods. If raping a 10 year old isn't pedophilia, then what is it? Even most 13 year olds still look like children.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 12:17 PM
If I find religion and get morals (currently I'm a godless, immoral Atheist) does this mean I get to molest children like all the other holy moral religious people?
Posted by: Doug | April 13, 2008 12:26 PM
We should also recognize that in these cults, young boys are driven off because they compete with the older men for the girls.
The young boys are left homeless with no family and no skills, and feelings of heavy guilt.
It's a lose-lose proposition.
Posted by: GBruno | April 13, 2008 12:26 PM
I'm wondering if there are any bodies buried in the backyard. What is the mortality rate of adolescents giving birth?? How many stillborns?? Where are the boys (assuming 50/50 birth rate) - obviously the teen boys are kicked out - where are the little ones? If they are having babies in hospitals shouldn't the authorities takes note of 16 yr olds with multiple births? I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Rowan | April 13, 2008 12:30 PM
Medically that is extremely unwise. There is a lot higher morbidity and mortality in very young teen age pregnancies than in more mature women.
Another triumph of cult ideology over common sense and morality.
Just another method of control of women as well. Once the girls have a kid or two, they are far more dependent on the men and the babies make great hostages.
Posted by: raven | April 13, 2008 12:33 PM
So, have the "official" Latter Day Saints spoken up to say that this has noting to do with the religion they practice?
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 13, 2008 12:35 PM
Comment #19 Quidam
Exactly!
Stated succinctly and right on target.
Thank you.
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | April 13, 2008 12:36 PM
Just like the priests, these folks have child sex rings. The only way to deal with them is to place them in a controlled environment where they will have zero access to children.
Posted by: Mold | April 13, 2008 12:40 PM
I just think that anyone who uses their religion as a crutch to support their disgusting problems sickens me. It makes me proud to be an Atheist.
Posted by: Mike | April 13, 2008 12:47 PM
Ouch Holbach, you really don't like guys do you? Come on, we're not all that bad...
Posted by: Nick | April 13, 2008 12:49 PM
"They're married off and supposed to start producing children between the ages of 10-13, basically as soon as they start to have periods. If raping a 10 year old isn't pedophilia, then what is it? Even most 13 year olds still look like children."
There was no mention in the article of when most of the girls were married off, so if that is the case and the majority are married and bedded by 10 than that certainly is pedophelia. However, I was referring mostly to the 16 year old girl mentioned in the article, my basic point being that if an individual has reached physical/sexual maturity, then being attracted to them cannot be construed as pedophelia.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 12:50 PM
Yes and no. The main church excommunicated them a century ago. And right now, I bet the leadership of the LDS are in their bunkers in SLC hoping the FLDS would just go away and disappear. It is bad PR.
They aren't too happy about the polygamists. They do occasionally try to keep them from running wild and fighting wars amongst themselves and killing the local cops.
But it doesn't look like they care that all that much or make a huge effort to address the social problems these cults create. After Waco, moving against wingnut religious cults became a lot harder. No one wants another Jonestown.
Posted by: raven | April 13, 2008 12:54 PM
Holbach's blanket condemnation of an entire sex based on personal bias and simplistic moralism is about as kooky as christianity.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 12:54 PM
This polygamist stuff in the news always makes me think of Sheri S. Tepper's amazing, and in part terrifying, novel of a post-apocalyptic future called The Gate to Women's Country. If you haven't read it, check it out. It shows what happens to these communities in the long run - too many men, not nearly enough women/girls. The choice that is made in Women's Country is startling, yet makes a profound sense evolutionarily. I used this book in a Biotechnology and Society seminar I used to teach. Great book, and it does give me some hope to know that these polygamist societies are doomed to be short term experiments. Doesn't help the women/girls or boys who are unlucky enough to be born into them however.
Posted by: biogeek | April 13, 2008 12:59 PM
The official LDS church has only said that there is no connection between them and the fundamentalists, which isn't entirely true.
Polygamy, and even sex in temples, was started by the official LDS church, in Brigham Young's time, according to news reports from the time.
Steve Benson, a prominent ex-mormon, has been releasing details of the early temple practices of mormonism over at the exmormon.org forums.
My perspective is that Government shouldn't be involved in saying who can or cannot marry, but a marraige also shouldn't give a free pass to anyone for rape or pedophilia.
Posted by: Measure | April 13, 2008 1:03 PM
The reason the girls are married off so young is that if each man is supposed to have 4 or more wives, you start running out of wives in the 20+ age group, then you start running out of wives in the 18-20 age group, then there's not many left in the 16-18 age group ...
And the younger the girls are, the more likely they are not to protest, to believe everything they're told, and to acquiesce to what they have been taught to believe is a sacred duty. Control, power, personal gain - these young people who deserved much better are being sacrificed for someone else's benefit.
Posted by: Rey | April 13, 2008 1:08 PM
Oh I'm sorry, was that a rhetorical question?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 13, 2008 1:11 PM
Catholic priests go after little girls too, but it's not as sexy to put "RELIGIOUS FIGURES ABUSE LITTLE GIRLS - AGAIN!" on the CNN news marquee.
Posted by: limes | April 13, 2008 1:14 PM
And I think "PZ Myers" has become synonymous with "demented fuckwit bigot."
Posted by: dsmvwld | April 13, 2008 1:14 PM
However, I was referring mostly to the 16 year old girl mentioned in the article, my basic point being that if an individual has reached physical/sexual maturity, then being attracted to them cannot be construed as pedophelia.
One article I read about it mentioned a 16 year old who had 3 kids, so the math would indicate that she started by 13 at the latest. But I can't find it to reference now, so it is possible that I misread somewhere.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 1:25 PM
biogeek -- having read The Gate to Women's Country myself, I know the fictional community you refer to. However, with that one, the patriarchs in charge of the cult make matters worse by exposing the "less valuable" infant girls during tough years, shrinking the gene pool, reducing the number of available females and causing even worse inbreeding.
These creeps haven't been just offing baby girls. At least, not that we know of. It will be interesting to find out how many infant skeletons we find when the graveyard gets investigated, and what the sex ratios are.
Posted by: Maureen Lycaon | April 13, 2008 1:26 PM
In related news:
Court to consider death penalty for child rape
Posted by: Kieran | April 13, 2008 1:29 PM
That bit about the "lost boys" was an eye-opener... these people live their lives like elephant seals (except with less self-awareness). I wonder how many "sneaker males" abode in the compound.
Also, Holbach, please reconsider your condemnation of public urination- a cold January night, back to the wind, a rising cloud of steam... gotta write a haiku about it!
A cold winter night
a bellyful of lager
cloud of steam rises
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | April 13, 2008 1:34 PM
This could be an argument from ignorance, but ...
I haven't heard any strong statement from the Mormon Church about all this.
That fits suspiciously well with the assertion that religious moderates provide cover for religious extremists.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 13, 2008 1:39 PM
Nick @ 32 Come on, it was not a blanket renunciation of all males but a realistic evaluation of the differences between the sexes when it comes to matter of crime and personal deportment. We may not like it, but we have to agree with it because it is so damn true. Whether it stems from evolutionary or acquired reasons I'll leave that to others who may be more inclined to comment on it. Suffice it to say that it is just blatant reality, whether we like it or not.
And to hmc @35: Personal bias? Simplistic moralism? No, I have no personal bias against males, but am so aware of the obvious preponderous of criminal and ethical behavior of males as opposed to females, that I would naturally favor the female when it involves which is the sex least involved in crime and bad behavior. Who commits the majority of crimes on this planet? So which sex is the more apt to be more dangerous to life and morals? Simple as that. Simplistic moralism? Yes, of course it is, but a lot of males do not like to have it thrown in their faces because it represents the male sex. I'm a male; you tell me that the male commits the majority of crimes and I will honestly and realistically agree with you. It could not be any more simplistic as that. Any comments from you females out there? You know I am right and can agree with me without incurring any sexist inuendoes from the poor bereaved and mortified males of that phony and superior persuasuion. Come on males, face the fact that if there were no females in our civilization we would be in one hell of a miasma of outright barbarism.
Posted by: Holbach | April 13, 2008 1:42 PM
#33
However, I was referring mostly to the 16 year old girl mentioned in the article, my basic point being that if an individual has reached physical/sexual maturity, then being attracted to them cannot be construed as pedophelia.
Many of these girls have had it drummed into their head for most of their lives that this is their lot in life. That they are sexual servants and bound by god to be the property of men. This alone is systematic abuse that occured while they were children and went beyond. Even if it is not pedophilia, the systematic degradataion of another human being in this way is REPUGNANT. Also - do the math, some of these girls who are 16 now, have had 3 or 4 children already. At an absurd minimum, they could only have been 13 when they got pregnant the first time. Seems VERY close to pedophila to me... Fortunately that is not for you or I to decide.
Posted by: PaulR | April 13, 2008 1:44 PM
Pornography? Prostitution? Fetishism? Most broken marriages? making females go bad?
Some I agree with from the above,my list I think your out to lunch.
Posted by: JimC | April 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Calgeorge #28:
Well the FLDS broke away from the LDS a long time ago, and the LDS long ago washed their hands of them. So yes, the LDS has spoken up and said that the FLDS is completely separate from the LDS (since 1890). Most recently, here
http://www.myfoxutah.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6286307&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
By the way, the LDS is no more responsible for the behavior of the FLDS than Christianity in general is responsible for it.
Posted by: Chris | April 13, 2008 1:50 PM
There's a pdf of the affadavit here.
According to it, "Once a minor female child is determine [sic] by the leaders of the YFZ Ranch to have reached child bearing age (approximately 13-14 years old) they are then "spiritually married" to an adult male member of the church and they are required to then to engage in sexually [sic] activity with such male for the purpose of having children."
So not quite as young as I thought, but 13-14 is still too damned young for any of this, especially when you consider that a lot of them are 4th, 5th, or even 8th wives to men who are old enough to be their father and then some. And 14 is in no way sexually mature by any means, physical or emotional.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 1:50 PM
"Many of these girls have had it drummed into their head for most of their lives that this is their lot in life. That they are sexual servants and bound by god to be the property of men. This alone is systematic abuse that occured while they were children and went beyond. Even if it is not pedophilia, the systematic degradataion of another human being in this way is REPUGNANT. Also - do the math, some of these girls who are 16 now, have had 3 or 4 children already. At an absurd minimum, they could only have been 13 when they got pregnant the first time. Seems VERY close to pedophila to me... Fortunately that is not for you or I to decide."
As I stated previously, the actions of this cult are abhorrent and disgusting. However, I either did not read closely enough to find the part of the article which told of how many children these girls had or it did not mention it at all. Regardless, my basic point, once again, is that sexual attraction to a physically mature individual is not pedophelia.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 1:52 PM
Well, on the bright side, if young teens weren't giving birth in the past many thousands of years to millions of years; we wouldn't be here.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 13, 2008 1:53 PM
"So not quite as young as I thought, but 13-14 is still too damned young for any of this, especially when you consider that a lot of them are 4th, 5th, or even 8th wives to men who are old enough to be their father and then some."
I agree, as I stated in my first post. However, that was not my point of contention.
"And 14 is in no way sexually mature by any means, physical or emotional."
All girls mature at different speed, some can reach physical maturity by age 14. This does not in any mean it is okay for adults to pursue a relationship with them, however feeling a basic sexual attraction towards them cannot be called pedophilia, as it is a primitive reaction towards seeing a physically mature individual. As you might notice, I previously stated that these girls were clearly not ready for such relationships, and have been very careful to refer to post-pubescent females ONLY as physically mature, not mentally or emotionally.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 1:59 PM
#43 Maureen Lycaon: True, they sped up the process by killing the "useless" girl babies in that story, but that really only sped up the process. In reality, without such measures, the net effect is a slightly slower decline in the female population - this group seems to have figured out that the young men/boys are the problem, and give them the boot, leaving them to their own resources (without any education of how to get along in the real world, with the evil outsiders, of course). The fact that they are marrying 15 year olds (and probably much much younger girls) to 50+ yo men suggests they are well on the path to the eventual outcome of the community found in the book.
What would be *very* interesting is a study on the sexually transmitted diseases there. Oh, and they're going to be doing swabs on all the kids to figure out who the actual parents are (so they know who the state will remove parental rights from) which might also provide interesting results.
It was mentioned that this group (and all those like it) are quite inbred, and this is true. There are known recessive genetic disorders that are quite common in some of these communities, most of which would be easily avoided by not making babies with people who have the same grandparents as you do. The local agencies try to do something to help them but the trust is brittle, since these girl-moms have been taught that everyone outside are evil and can't be doing good. In addition, they really should be keeping some of those young studs around, because while not as commonly heard about, there are some chromosomal defects and conditions that are closely related to paternal age (as constrasted with the commonly known association with maternal age and Down Syndrome, among others).
Between the old daddies and the inbreeding going on, I won't be surprised if they find some seriously fucked up babies in the graveyard there.
Posted by: biogeek | April 13, 2008 1:59 PM
Here's an account of a woman who escaped the FLDS life. Well, after being eight children to a man 32 years her senior whom she was forced to marry at 18 (she at least got started at a reasonable age).
This is the part of her story that nauseated me the most was this:
I wonder how a 12 year old girl fends for herself in an environment like that,.
Posted by: Aquaria | April 13, 2008 2:00 PM
Who wants to play with Mr. Wiggle?
Posted by: Lago | April 13, 2008 2:01 PM
"i think there are some up here in Canada hiding in BC."
Yes, in "Bountiful" near Lister, BC. Not actually hiding, though.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=49.029765,-116.441345&spn=0.17063,0.297318&t=h&z=12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia
Posted by: Ted Powell | April 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Holbach, your arguments are the same used by white supremacists to argue that non-white people are inherently inferior. The "it's simple statistics, I'm not being biased" attitude is pretty much exactly alike, you refuse to look any deeper into the cause of these statistics, how they might be skewed, what misconceptions you may hold without any actual evidence, etc. Not to mention you're ridiculous condemnation of such things as porno, public pissing, prostitution, etc. in the same breath as rape and war. Are you sure you're not christian?
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 2:07 PM
Dude, are you framing again?
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 13, 2008 2:09 PM
I'm not sure, PhysioProf. Is "Make the bastards deny it" an variant of framing?
Posted by: rrt | April 13, 2008 2:21 PM
Accusing all fundamentalists of misogynistic pedophilia based on the actions of a wacko sex cult is at least as logical as accusing all evolutionists of being complicit in the Holocaust based on the actions of genocidal totalitarians (This of course will be utterly unintelligible to the producers of EXPELLED!).
And yes, the technical term for the sexual obsession with post-pubescent youth is ephebophilia, a fact which does not grant it any inherent moral superiority over paedophilia. Any cult where middle-aged men brainwash teenaged girls into becoming their ritual sex slaves is sick, sick, sick.
Posted by: Farb | April 13, 2008 2:28 PM
This really is screwed up thinking if you ask me. I guess if this kind of simplistic thinking makes you popular with certain people then do it.
I noticed the same kind of thinking here on global warming and several other issues. Any reasonable person with a good scientific education can see the kind of errors slipping into the thinking of the chicken littles. So the response is to demonize everyone on the "other side".
In this case every fundamentalist is presumed a mysoginist and pedophile. In the other every person who questions global warming is assumed ignorant of science and has some hidden evil motive for destroying the environment.
Get off it. These issues are way more complex than that.
Posted by: Brian Macker | April 13, 2008 2:29 PM
I think you guys are taking that comment way to seriously. To me it seems a joking comment which uses hyperbole to illustrate his disgust with the widespread sexual abuses of religion.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 2:32 PM
From the link above. Sounds ominous. Anyone know what this is all about? Hope they were justing killing mice and coyotes rather than excess boys.
What is strange, after all this is over, the vast majority of the wives and kids will probably just go back to the compound if they can. It is the only life they have known, they've been brainwashed since birth, and they have nowhere else to go.
Posted by: raven | April 13, 2008 2:39 PM
exactly hmc.
Is it really that complex Macker? Time and time again the most self declared fundamentalist of any religion, are also the most fucked up and abusive to girls and in some cases boys. It seems that often its quite good cover to do quite heinous things under the guise of following scripture.
Do mildly religious or moderately religious people do these things? Not usually. But the also don't call themselves fundamentalists.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 13, 2008 2:42 PM
You can't call a teenager "physically mature," just for being able to reproduce. Our brains aren't "physically mature" until we're near or into our 20s.
(Speaking only for myself, I wasn't a responsible adult until I was somewhere near 30 ... and even today I sometimes have doubts about whether or not I'm a grownup.)
From the side of the children of such unions, being born to a 14-year-old mother seems like a form of child abuse. You can't blame the girl-mother all that much, of course, but what sort of responsible parenting is someone like that going to be capable of?
And that business with the older fathers, some of whom had dozens of kids ... yuck. I can't even imagine what sort of self-esteem problems you might end up with.
I didn't think much about all this when I initially read the story, but the more I think about it, the more this type of cult looks like a really nasty, self-perpetuating recipe for creating human misery.
I hope some of these kids taken out of the compound get to see some of the real world while they're in foster care. Heh. It would be great if some of them ended up in atheist homes, where they could experience life without religion for a year or so.
Although whatever child welfare agency is dealing with them will probably work to see they end up in Christian households, where they can experience good healthy religion, and not that bad, sick religion like they had back home.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 13, 2008 2:42 PM
"It isn't like too many people are interesting in joining a wacko cult and living in the middle of nowhere."
I'll take living in the middle of nowhere if I can pass on the cult.
Holbach said "Heck, it's not cancer that kills most females, it's the freaking male.
Uh, no, that would be heart disease
Posted by: BaldApe | April 13, 2008 2:42 PM
Any reasonable person with a good scientific education can see the kind of errors slipping into the thinking of the chicken littles.
[Citation Needed]
Seriously, oh great knowledgeable one, what pray tell, have those who have devoted their lives to studying the climate missed that you can enlighten them with. And if it's the old "H2O is the bigger greenhouse gas problem" bs again, then you need to go back and take a course in nonlinear dynamics to discover what "driving" and "feedback" means.
Sorry for OT, but people who just assume that their little pet opinions haven't already been looked into and ruled out really bug me.
Posted by: Bouncing Bosons | April 13, 2008 2:44 PM
however feeling a basic sexual attraction towards them cannot be called pedophilia, as it is a primitive reaction towards seeing a physically mature individual.
But most 14 year olds don't even look physically mature, is my point. Rarely you see one who looks maybe 18, but that's anomalous. 14 years olds are generally not as tall as adults, their breasts and hips are not fully developed, they still have baby pudge around their cheeks, their eyes are still a little on the big side for their faces. I still think that sexually fetishising 13-14 year olds as a group, as is the case here (because it was the standard age for marrying) is a lot closer to pedophilia than not. This isn't a case of a man being attracted to one particularly mature-looking adolescent, it's a case of institutionalized rape at 13 for the masses.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 2:47 PM
"You can't call a teenager "physically mature," just for being able to reproduce. Our brains aren't "physically mature" until we're near or into our 20s."
Yes, you can call a teenager physically mature if they have gone through puberty. Their sexual/reproductive functions are that of an adult, making any sense of sexual attraction an individual may feel towards another who is under 18 but has gone through puberty not pedophilic. If you want to talk about brain development you'll need to be much more specific.
"(Speaking only for myself, I wasn't a responsible adult until I was somewhere near 30 ... and even today I sometimes have doubts about whether or not I'm a grownup.)"
Once again, I specified that these girls were clearly not ready for such relationships, and that in no way does being sexually mature make one emotionally or mentally mature. Sexual attraction =/= trying to engage in a serious relationship with someone decades younger than you.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 2:52 PM
I can't speak to this correctly, but you might consider the following:
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 13, 2008 2:53 PM
Macker #62,
From reading your previous posts, I think that at least one of the two assumptions you list must be true.
Posted by: Mike | April 13, 2008 2:56 PM
When this story broke about a week ago, I made the mistake of reading the discussion-boards on KSL's (local news in SLC) website. By my estimation 40-50% of the posters on that board were arguing in favor of the FLDS, or at least against the state of Texas for taking "unconstitutional" measures. The Religious Bigotry card was brought out and played for all its worth (not much in this case). I am reasonably sure that most of these posters were LDS, not FLDS.
I made myself unpopular over there by making the following observations:
1) Both child sexual abuse and polygamy are federal crimes.
2) Arranging a marriage between a 14 (or even 16) year old girl and a 50+ year old man is a crime and is morally reprehensible.
3) If your religion mandates breaking at least one federal law and condones breaking at least one more, then it fair to be arrested "for your religion", since you are either guilty of a federal crime or of being an accomplice to one.
This situation is a horrible mess regardless of which angle you approach it from. The state is now temporarily the ward of 400-someodd children who have been acculturated into the belief that everyone else is evil, and will soon have to start separating them from their parents and placing them into foster care. Separating a child from her parents is a truly horrible thing to have to do, but the case for child abuse is fairly cut and dry. If the state hadn't moved when they did the FLDS could only have become more entrenched.
I hope we can all take away an obvious lesson from this case; giving someone the privilege of ignoring our laws just because they claim a religious belief is asking for trouble. Nobody likes to have their rights taken away, regardless of whether their rights were justified or not.
Posted by: pcarini | April 13, 2008 2:58 PM
Being only attracted to six year olds would be pedophilia. Raping a ten year old is sexual abuse and child molestation.
Seriously, is it really THAT bizarre an idea that there might be some value in using words correctly?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 13, 2008 3:02 PM
hmc, you keep arguing "physically mature". 13 year olds are not physically mature. They don't look physically mature. I think you may be stuck in thinking about the 16 year old in the article, or don't know many kids, or both. They are routinely married off at 13-14. 13 is HUGELY different than 16 in a physical sense. 13 year olds look like children, not like adults. The 16 year old in the article had been married off at 15, and the reason it had been that "late" was that her parents had just recently joined the compound. By and large these are not girls who look physically mature. They are children, who look like children.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 3:02 PM
Sorry, Azkyroth. Raping a 10 year old can be the result of pedophilia, not pedophilia itself. There may also be other reasons to rape 10 year old, all of which are equally repugnant.
Posted by: Carlie | April 13, 2008 3:05 PM
"But most 14 year olds don't even look physically mature, is my point. Rarely you see one who looks maybe 18, but that's anomalous."
Agreed. My point is that a basic attraction to someone who is post-pubsecent, whether they be 14 or 17, is not pedophilia.
"14 years olds are generally not as tall as adults, their breasts and hips are not fully developed, they still have baby pudge around their cheeks, their eyes are still a little on the big side for their faces."
This is often true, and for someone to be attracted to an adolescent who is clearly not yet sexually mature is indeed pedophilia. However, if one was attracted to a 14 year old who clearly had gone through puberty, it would not be. To reiterate, I am certainly not saying that an adult engaging in a relationship with such an adolescent would be acceptable in any way, I'm simply saying that attraction to such an adolescent would not be a pedophilic urge.
"I still think that sexually fetishising 13-14 year olds as a group, as is the case here (because it was the standard age for marrying) is a lot closer to pedophilia than not."
Certainly. If this cult makes standard practice of marrying off girls when they reach 13, that can be called pedophilia as the overwhelming majority of girls that age have not reached sexual maturity. Even had these girls reached said maturity, it would still be abhorrent to simply marry them off at such a young age. While not pedophilia, that is still abuse of a minor, as they have definitely not mentally or emotionally matured enough to marry, especially in such a toxic cult.
"This isn't a case of a man being attracted to one particularly mature-looking adolescent, it's a case of institutionalized rape at 13 for the masses."
Yes, I have recognized this since my first post and condemned it, my only point was that the basic attraction to a physically mature girl is not pedophilia. As I mentioned previously, I saw little mention of 13 year olds in the article, whether it was by me simply not reading closely enough or the article not mentioning them at all, my post was mostly in reference to the 16 year old girl mentioned.
Posted by: hmc | April 13, 2008 3:06 PM
...I really shouldn't be surprised to find Brian Macker defending child rapists, should I?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 13, 2008 3:06 PM
What made me particularly ill on the news this evening was that:
a) the females who grew up in the compound were denied any education (according to the reporter on France 3; I can't corroborate with another source)
b) more than one wife has attested that their daughters have been raped in the same house by their own genitors (can't call that a "father").
#11: "They are also very inbred." You little thought you were so on the mark.
We didn't have to go all the way to Iraq or Afghanistan to free vulner