Curse of Adam

The following debate originally took place on Facebook…

(This debate also inspired me to finally complete and publish the following article, “The War on Women, and the Inextricable Connection Between Pørnøgraphy, Child Sɛx Trafficking, Slavery and Jeffrey Epstein, after my first round of contributions to this argument)

Alex B.: This is the degeneracy of western culture.

Burning men alive is considered more acceptable than a man joking about being in the kitchen.

Polls showed that about 30% of women hated men and less viewed men favourably.

Western culture has destroyed itself with feminism and the masses are too foolish to recognize the problem.

Ishawooa P: Setting someone on fire is horrific. This Dadvocate post claims that these comments are from women mocking the victim. However, more than half of the comments are from men, and most of the comments are satirical, illustrating the reaction women face when reporting r@pe.

There is an effort to divide men and women. I see it in your generation. Don’t fall victim to it.

Alex B.: Ishawooa yes, some are satyrical and sowm are from men, but I assure you that no effort has been needed for the division. Femnism has affected both men and women. Our culture has worked hard to make men seem like monsters, and it has worked on most women and has worked on some men too.

My whole life was watching it play out, between the “me too” movement, the “I choose the bear” movement, the typod movement, false accusations I experienced all throughout my life, and seeing the posts of women and comments of women that were as vile as these comments.

Ive been enjoying myself in India, as I dont see the same thing in my family here.

Pretty much my whole life I kept hearing women say that men were dangerous, that men were rapists, men were useless, etc.

For me, it was always the comments “I cant be friends with you because Im not friends with guys” or “I dont trust you because you are a guy” or “you dont know what it is like to be a woman. You dont have to live in fear” or “check your white male privilege” etc.

I would regularly hear stories about guys ans I would constantly hear the women always supporting the girl even without hearing the other side or even if the other guy was wrong.

When the woman cheated and left, it was still the man who was blamed for making her. All the girls would come together to hug her and love her after she cheats on her husband and he leaves.

These comments honestly depict what I saw throughout my life.

Dont get me wrong. I love women, deeply. I utterly despise western culture, though.

I love the righteous, and that isnt based on gender. Ive watched western culture, though, and seen what it is and does.

Ishawooa P.: I am surprised at these comments you hear: “I cant be friends with you because Im not friends with guys” or “I dont trust you because you are a guy” or “you dont know what it is like to be a woman. You dont have to live in fear” or “check your white male privilege” etc.

and that your whole life you’ve heard women say that men were dangerous, that men were rapists, men were useless, etc.

I have never heard a woman friend or acquaintance or coworker or family say any of these things. Maybe it is your generation then. I hope not.

Alex B.: Ishawooa, It probably is a generational thing.

Feminism started the train wreck and it has gotten worse over time.

It started with small groups saying that being protected and having gender roles was evil and tyrannical. This grew and grew over the next hundred years and this generation has seen it climax horribly.

The majority of women voted they would rather meet a random bear in the woods than a random man.

Some groups of women began poisoning their husbands’ coffees if they voted trump.

The whole “me-too” movement was a movement of women posting online that they had been in some way sexually harrassed without needing to verify the claim in any way. Since nobody was holding any of them accountable since none of the claims were being brought forth, it led to a massive influx of claims that men were sexually harrassing women or assaulting them without any actual clear evidence.

A “tea” app was created that only women were allowed onto so they could write whatever they wanted about men to avoid without the man being able to defend themselves. Millions of women began trashing men on an app that the men couldnt even look at or defend themselves from.

Then there was the “60 million men” rape website false claim where 1,000 men and women were in a group chat talking about something that could constitute rape and then dishonest people inflated this to a whole website of 60 million people of men and women being 60 million men talking about how to rape etc.

The actual number was less than 1,000, and yet I saw repeated posts claiming 60 million men were trying to rape women.

And when men would give the correct number (less than 1,000), the men were consistently called rapists or rapist sympathizers etc.

This is what our culture has degenerated into.

And when it is pointed out, the men consistently get silenced.

And thats why Im speaking out.

I truly love the righteous women I know.

I love my wife, I love you, I love others, but what I keep seeing is demoralizing.

Alex B.: Ishawooa, Somewhat recently (in the past month), I saw a bunch of ladies claiming that any woman under legal age (less than 18) is being raped, even if they specifically consented.

claiming that anyone underage cannot consent, they used that as justification to say that anyone that has sex with them is raping them.

Since the scriptures clearly show younger marriages (Mary, for instance, was supposedly 12 when she gave birth to messiah, for instance, due to her being sent with Joseph to avoid poluting the temple with her period as she served in the temple), I challenged that if they both wanted to get married and the families both supported them, who are they to call it rape and say that she is unable to consent when she clearly did consent to marriage.

Immediately I had a slew of women calling me a pedophile and rapist. I had one person messaging every girl there that I have a teenage mailorder bride (my wife is 29, btw) and another tried to message my wife that I was pro raping children etc.

The context was clearly that the man and woman BOTH agreed to marriage and the families both supported it, but a slew of women immediately began barraging with false accusations that I am pro child rape.

that is how bad this culture is.

Can you see why I would loath this culture?

They are literally forcing their will upon any girl under 18 and then accusing others that say the girl has a say as being rapists.

Not even a single woman was honest on the post. I had probably about 30 direct false accusers and not a single one could actually engage with the proper context.

Thomas K.: Alex, The arguments that you are making to justify 12 year olds consenting to marriage are the same exact arguments used to justify parents and doctors sterilizing children with “puberty blockers” (medical castration drugs originally used against prisoners) and mutilating their sex organs. Additionally, statistics show that 40% (2 out of 5) victims of child sex trafficking are trafficked by a family member. The defense you are making for child marriages are the traditions of men you are using to support legitimizing child trafficking.

The body of a 12 year old is not fully formed, so, even if they are able to have a child, they are not mature enough to do so – making it more risky. No man who loves a 12 year old girl will want to impregnate her because she is more at risk, when pregnancy is always a huge risk for every woman. This has been known for thousands of years, demonstrated by the invention and widespread usage of the “Cesarian section (C-section)” by the Roman surgeons to at least save an unborn child when the mother dies in child birth. You are saying that “YHWH had a 12 year old birth the Messiah, so it’s obviously okay for 12 year olds to marry and birth children”, but the entire conception and birth of our Messiah has always been considered a miracle birth – as in it was such an unheard of event that it is typically considered unbelievable. The Creator of all things has the ability to do what we consider impossible – such as to have a virgin child give birth or to give Moses leprosy and then immediately remove the leprosy – YHWH doing the impossible is not justification for you nor I to attempt to replicate His miracles. Unsurprisingly, YHWH ensured that Mary had a safe and smooth pregnancy and delivery – as YHWH can do with ease. No man can guarantee any woman a safe pregnancy and delivery, let alone a smooth experience. We are not YHWH.

Lastly, I went along with the claim that Mary was 12 when she had the Messiah; but I do not see a second witness to this claim anywhere and have not seen anywhere in the canon Gospel this claim at all. I don’t know if it’s true or not, and I remain skeptical, but I addressed you as if it were true.

Thomas K.: Alex, 5 facts about trafficking:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1LRW1kKtGh/

Thomas K.: Alex, 40% of trafficking victims are trafficked by a family member:

Thomas K.: Alex, In regards to your comments regarding feminism, I find it especially ironic that you discard the “me too” movement as a bunch of false/unverified allegations “without needing to verify the claim in any way” and that “nobody was holding them accountable since none of the claims were being brought forth” – but when those claims were finally publicly brought forth and people were finally being held accountable, it was Harvey Weinstein who was giving public apologies to his “alleged” “me too” victims and being sentenced to serve time in a federal prison. This was followed up 2 years later with the beginng stages of the revelation of the biggest confirmed political scandal and conspiracy of national and international history – Epstein was arrested a second time, this time, though, the “me too” movement was still ongoing so victims felt more safe to speak about the crimes that happened to them, as the names they dropped were the names of the most powerful people on the planet who run the most powerful government superpowers in current existence. Then, years later, very recently, the government released the “Epstein files” and, in doing so, have further proven that they are actively covering up the very crimes that the “me too” victims have been reporting for decades, and silenced for decades, until the “me too” movement made it safe and acceptable for victims to report the injustices committed against them because, up until a series of quickly culminated high-profile cases were exposed by the “me too” movement (Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Jeffrey Epstein, etc.), people were gaslighting and discrediting them through dismissing their accusations as false claims made against innocent men just like you are doing now.

Scripture says to never respect persons and judge not by sight nor hearing, but through wisdom and righteousness. Telling someone that their allegations are false is respecting the person of manhood (assuming the man is innocent) and disrespecting the person of womanhood (assuming the woman is lying) and the spirit of the accuser continues on to accuse the woman of lying in order to receive personal gain at the expense of the innocent man.

They said the same accusations against the Messiah, before they murdered him. He was called a liar and devil-possesed when he said that they conspired to kill him. His word was valued less than the priests (respect of the person of the priest class), even Pontius Pilot saw no fault in him and was demanded to execute him nonetheless because he allegedly “broke the law of Moses” and “led the people astray” for his own personal gain.

In Deuteronomy 22:25-27, if an engaged woman is taken by force, and there is no one around that could come to her rescue – also meaning there are no witnesses – then that man shall be put to death and the woman remains blameless. For that to happen, scripture demands we believe the woman to the point of taking a man’s life based on the alleged victim’s testimony alone. “Believe all women” is scriptural doctrine and this also shows us men that we have the scriptural/spiritual duty to rescue women from sexual abuse as soon as they report it and to “put away the evil” – as in to take the life of the alleged assailant so he cannot continue committing evil on girls and women.

[25] “But if a man finds the girl who is engaged in the field, and the man takes hold of her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

[26] But you shall do no matter to the girl. The girl has no sin worthy of death – for the matter is like a man who rises against his neighbour and murders him – a being – ”

[27] for he found her in the field, and she cried out, the engaged girl, but without anyone to save her.

https://bible.com/bible/316/deu.22.25-27.TS2009

Alex B.: Thomas, I dont recall exactly which text it was, but there is a text that goes into detaip about the circumstances of Mary.

It said she was working in the temple, and then the elders realized she was going to have her period soon and defile the temple and so they elected Joseph to be her husband. That being said, the marriage wasnt yet complete and they accused him of having sex with her before it was publically official.

Nevertheless, it doesnt change that her pregnancy began in this narrative at the age of 12. The bigger point is that biblically, women were married at the LATEST 20, and younger was preferred yet we have zero clearly defined criteria for justification yet berate anyone who disagrees with a completely made up age.

This one is harder to validate since the math actually seems to place rebekkah at 3 years old marrying Isaac. That obviously doesnt check out, but if the math is even remotely accurate Rebekkah would have had to be pretty you.

Now let us be clear: Im not interested in having anybody hurt, and if they deemed it better to wait to have children that is totally cool.

Nevertheless, you are missing the broader point:

What EXACT age is acceptable and what EXACT risks are acceptable in pregnancy?

At exactly what point would you justify the marriage and what is your criteria?

That is the question I asked those women and that is the question I ask you.

The other question is what age can a person have the right to their own consent?

In the case where the girl DEFINITELY wants to marry, what age is her opinion valid? And who are you to tell her that her opinion is not valid?

That is the other question I asked them.

You arent really getting at the heart of the issue and are sidestepping the real issue.

Is it magically 18 years old, as these people are arguing?

Is it magically 16?

What is your exact criteria?

This is where I take issue with your position, just as I took issue with their position.

I take major issue with creating random dates and generalizations without any clear criteria of justification.

Most of those people claim she fully develops her brain at 26, yet then justify her voting and marrying at 18, while also saying she cannot marry earlier because she isnt fully developed.

This is an entirely contradictory position to take, and I pointed that out but none were interested in answering any of it except to raise false accusations.

Alex B.: Thomas, Firstly, I wasnt making this about a person starting a movement. I was making this about the culture of the movement and the implications and impact of it.

The concept behind the whole movement is to create a narrative that is entirely unverified.

Each authentic claim ought to be prosecuted.

Since you mentioned the scriptures, Deuteronomy says that a woman sleeps with a man but doesnt cry out, it is not accepted as rape. But if she cries out, then it ought to be treated as rape. If people make claims in secret, they cannot be treated as valid. If true, they ought to be brought public and prosecuted.

The culture of said me too movement is to muddy the waters and make a guiltu until proven innocent movement.

Your usage of Deuteronomy to justify believing victims is sloppy at best.

It isnt “respecting persons” by not believing until proven. Innocent until proven guilty is the only just way to run society, and that is how the scriptures teach to do it.

Unless there are 2 or 3 witnesses, no testimony ought to be accepted to punish someone for a crime (although clear evidence can prove it).

I never said to say “your allegations are false.” I say “if you arent bringing it forth, then it isnt to be treated as legitimate” and “we cannot punish someone without proving their guilt.”

If you think it is reasonable to believe someone without proof, and then prosecute someone, that is a major injustice on your end.

Obviously in the case of Deuteronomy 22:25-27, there would be proof involved.

The main biblical way is to check if she still has her hymen, but regardless there has to be some proof to her claim.

Your very claim of being a respecter of persons (and I claim our creator IS a respecter of the righteous) would be in place if the woman was assumed to be telling truth without proof and then him punished.

You cant justly punish someone for a crime unproven.

Lastly, your point about family trafficking is unrelated. In context, the girl wants to marry, the guy wants to marry and both families are happy with the marriage. Your point is completely unrelated.

And although injustices happen, you cannot assume guilt without proof. That is injustice.

Alex B.: Rayn, Since you were following Thomas and liking his comments, I hope you are also following my responses since they entirely sidestepped the issues I was getting at while also making some problematic arguments that make more issues than help.

Arvore E.: Alex, This all according to your convenience! The ONLY TRUE LAW is Exodus 20 the 10 commandments which were given by the Mouth of Yahuah which came from the clouds and lightings. In deut 4:15-17 also it says That nobody saw any image of male or female in Yahuah. So nobody is to make any male or female image of God. But the liars Baal worshippers made Yahuah a man and declared slavery, rape, abuse and all kinds of crimes to be of Yah but it isn’t, those are all from hammurabi code, from Marduk, the liar, the murderer from the beginning, so as failed men also do. They are the dragon tail, they room around day and night trying to satisfy Satan’s tail, by raping murdering etc. BUT if they let Jesus in their heart , JUST THEN They will have the tail neutralized. LET THAT SINK IN. Ezekiel says it clear they received other statutes by which they cannot be saved. Beware that you could be in that list, for I see you seeking ways to exploit women’s bodies. Ezekiel 20:25 (KJV):

“Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;”

Alex B.: Arvore, Well, I do agree that there are false laws, but to say “only the 10 commandments” is not correct.

Which among the ten commandments says “love your neighbour as yourself”? And “Love Yahuah with all your heart, soul and mind”?

Those are found outside of the 10 commandments.

Now where have I advocated for slavery, rape, abuse or any of those things?

Where have I said anything about wanting to exploit women’s bodies?

You bear false witness against me.

On the contrary, the example I have is the WOMAN wanting to marry the man, and the whole family supporting it.

Contrarily, are you not the one asserting your own arrogance to tell her that her desire is invalid?

All I see is you asserting your own traditions as commandments while pretending to believe only the 10 commandments.

It is your own personal arrogance that says you can dictate who is allowed to have an opinion and who isnt.

You are asserting your own will over every person that doesnt meet YOUR specific criteria.

What age is a person allowed to decide their own desires? What age is a person able to decide they want to marry? And by what authority do you speak?

The hypocrisy astounds me.

Arvore E.:Alex, A 12 years girl is not mature enough to decide whether or not she loves a man, she has to mature and then be able to choose. Be able to study him, get to know his heart first. Plus she needs to grow up, study, build her foundation first, not just jump on the arms of anyone out there. Let’s say you even in your age now, are you a stable man? working, providing, paying your bills? If not, then you are not ready for any covenant w/any woman, because starting a family takes responsibility, honor, courage, hard work etc. A man cannot just get into a covenant w/a girl without having his own roof he can pay for. Same goes for girls. She needs to be able to sustain herself before anything.

Rayn: Alex, Thanks for informing me about your replies to Thomas, since I didn’t get any notification.

As a Messianic Voluntaryist, I do not believe in the initiation of aggression, nor force, against others – and most especially, physical force. Hence, I condemn every last bit of the violence this woman enacted in response to the verbal abuse she suffered. I will also point out that the statement which triggered the woman’s criminal reply was not simply a “joke”.

“As a mad man who casts firebrands, Arrows, and death, So is the man that deceives his neighbour, And says, Am not I in sport? Where no wood is, there the fire goes out: So where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases.”
– Proverbs 26:18-20 KJV

I’ve been told to “go back to the kitchen” countless times by weak, pathetic, insecure, and cowardly little bullies, laughing away, eager to disrespect, demean, diminish, devalue and dehumanize me, while I innocently attempted to enjoy peaceful activities, like playing basketball in the park. Never once did I reply to the verbal violence of their smug, arrogant, chauvinistic male elitism with physical force, but their words were not just “jokes” simply because the villains were laughing at the expense of my humanity.

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue”
-Proverbs 18:20

To be clear, this woman’s response did not match her injury, whatsoever, and in no way qualifies as self-defense. It was an unjustifiably and excessively punitive act of physical violence, not at all self-preserving, nor restorative of her dignity.

“Vengeance is mine”
– Deuteronomy 32:35

When you claim that “burning men alive is considered more acceptable than a man joking about being in the kitchen,” it seems like you’re failing to recognize the bitter sarcasm embedded within the replies to the article you shared, as many of them appear to be mocking the cruelty of the standard response a rape victim endures from police and during trial cross-examination upon being sexually assaulted, for example. Other commenters are amusing themselves at the irony of someone being incinerated as a result of directing their drunken friend go to the kitchen and cook. These are all very standard internet responses to such a scintillating news article. The trolls come out in force whenever there’s a viral news item sweeping the web, and they post provocative comments to feed off any attention they receive, especially outrage. I wouldn’t recommend extrapolating any conclusions about the general opinion of others on the issue of this crime via the worst elements of the internet.

Trolling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling

It’s also worth noting that this tragedy is an isolated incident involving one man, and took place among life-long friends, while being fueled by abuse of alcohol and cocaine, so I would also not recommend using this crime to extrapolate any conclusions that “burning men alive” is in any way “acceptable”, now.

https://share.google/aimode/kUlywawm9IY219FTS

According to Google, “In January 2024, Corbie Jean Walpole doused her long-time friend Jake Loader in petrol and set him on fire after he jokingly told her to “stay in the kitchen making scones” instead of drinking with men…. Enraged, Walpole retrieved a five-liter container of petrol from the garage and poured it over Loader… Walpole threatened Loader with a lighter. Stunned, Loader taunted her, saying, “Go on, do it,” before she ignited the fuel…”

Rayn: Alex, “Polls showed that about 30% of women hated men and less viewed men favourably”, you say? That’s interesting, albeit vague, and unsourced, so I don’t have enough information to comment any further about it. That certainly doesn’t reflect my personal views, nor my experiences in life. And, I grew up in NYC, too, where the population density and diversity are extremely high. But, since you appear to value statistics, here’s a much more important one for you to consider…

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics data, intimate partner homicide rates for women in the US are vastly higher than for men. Female intimate partner homicides account for approximately 3̲4̲%̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲a̲l̲l̲ ̲f̲e̲m̲a̲l̲e̲ ̲m̲u̲r̲d̲e̲r̲s̲, whereas male intimate partner homicides account for only 6% of male murders. “The percentage of females murdered by an intimate partner was 5 times higher than for males.” Here’s the link:

Female Murder Victims and Victim-Offender Relationship (2021):
https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021

Meanwhile, among female homicide victims in the US with a single known offender, about 90% were killed by men and about 10% by women, according to the US Department of Justice. Here’s the link:

Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Trends by Gender (2000-2005):
https://www.justice.gov/archive/mps/strategic2000_2005/gender.htm

Then, there’s this…

Nearly Nine out of 10 Women Murdered by Men [in US] are Killed by Someone They Know and Two Thirds Die by Gunfire, New Violence Policy Center Study Finds (Oct 2024):
https://vpc.org/press/nearly-nine-out-of-10-women-murdered-by-men-are-killed-by-someone-they-know-and-two-thirds-die-by-gunfire-new-violence-policy-center-study-finds

And, sadly, there’s also this…

Homicide is a Leading Cause of Death for Pregnant Women in US:
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2499

This world study is also important…

“[O]f 87,000 recorded female homicide cases last year, 50,000, or 58%, were committed by the victims’ intimate partners or family members. The toll equates to six women killed every hour, or 137 killed every day, by people they know.” Here is the link:

Home Is the ‘Most Dangerous Place’ for Women Around the World, New U.N. Study Says (Nov 2018):
https://time.com/5463069/home-most-dangerous-gender-violence-study-un

Unsurprisingly, there’s also this…

1 in 6 U.S. Women Has Experienced Attempted or Completed Rape in Her Lifetime:
https://rainn.org/get-informed/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem

And, finally, I saved the most vile for last, being a recent study which revealed that 95.1% of men reported at least one effort to force a woman into sex that they knew she did not want…

Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys (Apr 2026):
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605261432630

“Abstract: Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggression or else survey men who consent to being identified. Using anonymous surveys of 2,689 U.S. and Canadian men (18–34 years), we aimed to assess rates of self-reported sexual aggression, reports of strategy effectiveness at forcing known reluctant women into sex, and men’s views of the circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes. Men reported occasions where they tried to get a woman to engage in sex that they knew she did not want and to which she had not consented. The women were individuals with whom the men shared no prior romantic or sexual history. Overall, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex and had not consented. Most of these occasions (65%) resulted in successfully forcing the woman into sex. All of the 36 strategies generated from formative work were reported by at least some men; the average number ever used was 8.94. Consistent physical pressure and verbal coercion were common; overt force, including physical restraint and use of pain, was less common but not uncommon. Men who viewed themselves as better than same-aged male peers “at getting what they want sexually from women” used more forceful strategies. The men persisted for many reasons, most often because they were horny (38%) or because the opportunity arose (28%). They reported many positive outcomes from these interactions; most (70%) perceived no negative outcomes. Using anonymous survey methods provides a novel channel to capture men’s reports of the factors scaffolding their use of sexual aggression. Implications for prevention and making long overdue inroads into reducing rates are discussed.”

From the study…

“Discussion: This is one of the first studies to our knowledge to directly survey men anonymously about recent attempts to force an unwilling and nonconsenting woman to have sex. Our aim was to advance work in this area by gathering men’s perspectives regarding the strategies they used to enact sexual aggression against a woman with whom they had no established intimate or sexual history. Our reassurances of anonymity likely proved essential as 9̲5̲%̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲ ̲2̲,̲6̲8̲9̲ ̲m̲e̲n̲ ̲r̲e̲p̲o̲r̲t̲e̲d̲ ̲a̲t̲ ̲l̲e̲a̲s̲t̲ ̲o̲n̲e̲ ̲e̲f̲f̲o̲r̲t̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲ ̲s̲u̲c̲h̲ ̲a̲ ̲w̲o̲m̲a̲n̲ ̲i̲n̲t̲o̲ ̲s̲e̲x̲ ̲t̲h̲a̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲y̲ ̲k̲n̲e̲w̲ ̲s̲h̲e̲ ̲d̲i̲d̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲w̲a̲n̲t̲. In approximately two-thirds of those occasions, the men were successful in forcing sex. This study indicates that efforts to force women into sex are common and in fact now far better correspond to the high rates of forced sex that women report experiencing at the hands of men.”

Rayn: Alex, Here in America, we have misanthropic malcontents like Nick Fuentes polluting the airwaves with their ignorant, arrogant, entitled, abusive, misogynistic male elitist rhetoric, willfully corrupting entire generations of our youth with their maladaptive and sociopathic attitudes, beliefs and ideas. He’s FAR more dangerous than any internet troll could ever dream of being…

#FailedMale Nick Fuentes Openly Fantasizes About Receiving Incel-Affirming Care from Government, Calls for Imprisoning All Women, Describes “Breeding Gulags” (Translation: “Rape Cages”):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/19/failedmale-nick-fuentes-openly-fantasizes-about-receiving-incel-affirming-care-from-government-calls-for-imprisoning-all-women-describes-breeding-gulags-translation-rape-cages/

Rayn: Alex, Here’s some more important statistics for you to consider, since you value such information…Almost half of men in the world are regularly watching 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺..

According to world statistics, “men are roughly 4 times more likely than women to report watching [𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺] recently, about 44% versus 11% in the past month.”

Pø𝘳𝘯 Addiction Statistics (June 2026):
https://www.addictionhelp.com/porn/statistics

Among Americans, these stats are even worse… “A majority (57 percent) of men ages 30–49 report having watched pornography in the past month, and 42 percent say they have watched it in the past week.”

How Prevalent Is Pø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺? (May 2022):
https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-prevalent-is-pornography

This is actually down from a decade-old 2014 high point, wherein 87% of American men between the ages of 18-35 reported watching 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 at least once a week.

How Much of the Internet Consists of Pø𝘳𝘯?
https://www.statista.com/chart/16959/share-of-the-internet-that-is-porn

As I wrote in my February 2026 article on the topic, “The more 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 one has been consuming, the more support one has been providing to Jeffrey Epstein, his clients, and the international network of child 𝘴ɛ𝘹 𝘵𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 hubs that these Satanic flesh-peddling enslavers of humanity operate, with impunity. Make no mistake: these corrupt, crafty, craven, cruel and criminal human race traitors are not just devouring the bodies of our children, they’re also grinding their bones and feeding their tortured souls right back to the “Profane” among us – the “Unwashed Masses” who reinforce the “banality of evil” as apathetic accomplices in alchemically transforming “crimes against humanity” into “$pectator $port”.”

Pø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 Consumption Enriches Epstein, His Clients and Their International Network of Child Sɛ𝘹 T𝘳𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 (Feb 2026):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/21/po%f0%9d%98%b3%f0%9d%98%afo%f0%9d%98%a8%f0%9d%98%b3%f0%9d%98%a2%f0%9d%98%b1%f0%9d%98%a9%f0%9d%98%ba-consumption-enriches-epstein-his-clients-and-their-international-network-of-child-s%c9%9b/

Content Hosted on Pø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩ic Websites Around the Planet Created by Epstein and Friends Via Trafficking and Sex Slavery (Feb 2026):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/21/content-hosted-on-pornographic-websites-around-the-planet-created-by-epstein-and-friends-via-trafficking-and-sex-slavery/

Here are the gritty facts about the connection between 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 and 𝘴ɛ𝘹 𝘵𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨, courtesy of the organization, “Fight the New Drug”:

By the Numbers: Is the 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Industry Connected to 𝘚ɛ𝘹 𝘛𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨?
https://fightthenewdrug.org/by-the-numbers-porn-sex-trafficking-connected/

Why Fighting 𝘚ɛ𝘹 𝘛𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 Needs to Include Fighting 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/fighting-sex-trafficking-absolutely-includes-fighting-pornography/

How 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Can Fuel 𝘚ɛ𝘹 𝘛𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-fuel-sex-trafficking/

This pervasive pattern of 𝘴ɛ𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 exploitation and abuse is inherent to the 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 industry. Read more about it from “Fight the New Drug”:

Behind the Camera: Study Reveals the Hidden Abuse of 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Performers:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/behind-the-camera-study-reveals-the-hidden-abuse-of-porn-performers/

According to the study referenced in the above article, which focused primarily on female 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯 actresses, ~77% were “exploited in commercial 𝘱ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 as a minor”, ~86% were involved in “conventional prostitution”, and during the production of the films they acted in, ~56% endured physical assault and ~65% were ’d. Here’s the direct link to the study:

The Experience of Individuals Filmed for 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯ø𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺 Production: a History of Continuous Polyvictimization and Ongoing Mental Health Challenges (Feb 2025):
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2025.2464634#abstract

Here’s some more information on the topic from the earlier-mentioned organization, “Fight the New Drug”:

How the 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Industry Profits From Nonconsensual Content and Abuse:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-the-porn-industry-profits-from-nonconsensual-content-and-abuse/

How 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Can Promote 𝘚ɛ𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭 Violence:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-promote-sexual-violence/

How 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Can Distort Consumers’ Understanding of Healthy 𝘚ɛ𝘹:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-can-distort-consumers-understanding-of-healthy-sex/

How 𝘗ø𝘳𝘯 Can Negatively Impact Love and Intimacy:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/how-porn-negatively-impact-relationship/

To emphasize this point even more clearly, one of earliest “𝘱ø𝘳𝘯stars” in the industry to cross over into the “mainstream” – “Linda Lovelace”, while being glamorized as a cultural revolutionary and a feminist icon by the media for her role in the 1972 film, “Dɛɛp Thrøat”, was actually being drugged, 𝘵𝘳æ𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 and ’d all throughout the recording of the “movie”, and at the direction of her own husband, nonetheless! He actually pointed a revolver at her head from behind the camera during a number of scenes in order to coerce her into the performance that audiences celebrated for decades, afterward. Of course, this crime scene of a “film” also just so happened to feature a high-stakes 𝘴ɛ𝘹 act that has since helped to groom an entire generation of viewers into the deep dark world of fetishism.

Here’s a video that exposes the dark tragedy that took place “behind the scenes” during the production of this infamous “film”:

The Dark Secret Behind “Dɛɛp Thrøat”: The Linda Lovelace Tragedy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exTxUotpg4c

Rayn: Alex, Drugging and marital rape of women is exactly what helped kickstart the mainstream acceptance of pornography, and they continue to play an important role in the creation of pornographic content.

Behold the lower rungs of the Epstein Class…

[Frenchman] Dominique Pelicot Stealth-Drugged His Wife, Gisèle Unconscious for Nearly a Decade, While He Successful Used Website to Solicit Over 70 Men to  Her While He Filmed and Distributed the Footage Online (Feb 2026):
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/magazine/gisele-pelicot-france-rape-case-story.html

From the article: “At that point, my brain went into dissociation. He wanted to show me videos. I said, ‘No, I can’t anymore, I can’t.’ And he told me: ‘Your husband is in police custody, he won’t be leaving with you. You need to know that you have been ‘ed many times. We have arrested 53 individuals,’ and I will later learn that there are 20 or 30 who have not been arrested. He tells me that I have been ed about 200 times. I say, ‘But that’s not possible.’ And then I ask for a glass of water because I can’t talk anymore.

One of the things, as you note, that came out at the trial is real shock over how many men in a small village could be ists. One was even your neighbor. And Mazan is not unique. There’s nothing special about it. What can we understand from that? I don’t think my story is an isolated case. I’ve learned about stories that are similar to mine. Not long ago, I learned about a case, I think it was in Germany, where a man ed his wife for 15 years. He ‘offered’ her to other men.”

In fact, this same Frenchman made a protege out of one of the ists he recruited…

Associate of Frenchman in Mass  Trial Admits to Copycat Abuse of His Own Wife, Too – With the Two Men Working Together to Repeatedly Drug and  Her While Filming Crimes (Sept 2024):
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240918-associate-of-frenchman-in-mass-rape-trial-admits-to-copycat-abuse-on-his-own-wife

As for the German case mentioned by the victim in the original New York Times article, above…

German Court Jails Man for Drugging, ing and Filming Wife for 15 Years, While Distributing Videos of His Crimes Online (Dec 2025):
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/19/europe/german-pelicot-case-verdict-latam-intl

And, here’s another martial  case in the UK…

Former Tory Councillor Admits Drugging and ing Wife While Soliciting At Least Five Other Men to  Her Over 14-Year Period (Jan 2026):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/23/philip-young-former-tory-councillor-pleads-guilty-drugging-raping-wife

Telegram ‘ Chat Groups’ With Up to 70,000 Members Uncovered (Dec 2024):
https://www.yahoo.com/news/telegram-rape-chat-groups-70-142422399.html

And, sadly, it could have been prevented if rape kit testing was given proper priority…

French Justice Authority Finds Failings in Earlier Dominique Pelicot Case (Jan 2026):
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/01/19/french-justice-authority-finds-failings-in-earlier-dominique-pelicot-case_6749582_7.html
(“In 2010, Dominique Pelicot’s DNA had matched with evidence from a 1999  case. But the evidence was not acted upon until 2022.”)

Many countries around the world are back-logged when it comes to testing rape kits because they do not have the funds to keep up with high level of this crime taking place. In the US, where our legislators fail us, we have advocates like Mariska Hargitay, of the series “Law & Order: SVU”, using her celebrity to help bring justice to the land.

“It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of rape kits sit untested in police department and crime lab storage facilities across the country in what is referred to as the ‘rape kit backlog’ or the ‘untested rape kit backlog.’, according to Joyful Heart Foundation, a national nonprofit organization founded by producer, director, actress, and advocate, Mariska Hargitay:
https://www.endthebacklog.org/what-is-the-backlog/

Exposing a Global ‘Rape Academy’:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.html

She Was Asleep While It Happened: Gisèle Pelicot and the Disturbing Rise of “Sleep Porn”:
https://fightthenewdrug.org/she-was-asleep-while-it-happened-gisele-pelicot-and-the-disturbing-rise-of-sleep-porn/

Rayn: Alex, With respect to the comments you left under your original post, here, regarding child brides, I have a special interest in this topic, since it involves both slavery and protecting the vulnerable and voiceless…

“‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Ruach,’ said YHWH of hosts” – Zeḵaryah 4:6

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue” – Proverbs 18:21

“Open your mouth for the dumb, In the cause of all the sons of the departed. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8-9

“For everyone who is practising evil matters hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” – Yoḥanan 3:20

As the body of Mashiyach, we shall “slay the wicked with the breath of His lips”, as indicated in Yesha’Yahu (Isaiah) 11:4

Let us be the “irate, tireless minority”, here, exposing every last one of these Satanic human race traitors and their insatiable blood lust to prey upon the most vulnerable members of humankind.

“Never underestimate the ability of a small group of dedicated people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” – Samuel Adams

I’ll start by quoting from an earlier debate I had on the topic of protecting children from the sexuality of adults: “Children will always maintain the right to be free from the corrupting influence of adult sexuality… [the likes of which] unduly “challenge” (tamper with) the youth to turn away from their childhood innocence, and embrace adult themes that they are biologically incapable of understanding.”

Fully Exposing the Child-Grooming Agenda of ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ (Nov 2022):
https://acidrayn.com/2022/11/06/fully-exposing-the-child-grooming-agenda-of-drag-queen-story-hour/

As for age of consent, a human being is not an adult until they complete puberty. Before this time, they are not fully physically developed. Adulthood is a human stage of growth that has a distinct set of biological markers, many of which can easily be harmlessly measured and recorded, while others would require unnecessary internal scans. The only caveat is that such recordings would be unique to every person, and would need to be taken over time, and extend slightly past the beginning of adulthood, in order to adequately record the exact time when all physical growth no longer continues.

“For girls, puberty typically ends around age 15 to 17 years. For boys, it tends to end around age 16 to 17 years.” After puberty ends, one is physically an adult. Here is the link:

Human Puberty:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/puberty

The term “adult” is not nearly as arbitrary as those debating the issue often imply. Under federal law, 18 is generally considered the age of adulthood, known as the age of majority. And, I’m in full agreement with this age signifying adulthood, as it does so with absolute certainty, while the scope fully protects the vast majority of puberty timelines within human development, and also provides a minor buffer for adjustment into adulthood, all of which are reasonable measures.

Legally, anyone under the age of 18 is classified as a “child” or a “minor”. This is the standard definition used by the Cornell Law School Wex Legal Dictionary and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Here are the links to both:

Legal Dictionary: “child”:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/child

Are Teenagers Still Children?
https://talkingpointcards.com/blogs/relationship-revolution/are-teenagers-still-children

Rayn: Alex, In the US, the battle to protect the innocence of children from being adulterated by adult sexuality has been ongoing for almost a century… I’ve written about this many times. There is a very good reason for the proliferation of pornography, LGBT, trans-genderism, sexual abuse and pedophilia in America. This is a Rockefeller Institute production and it has held undue influence over US legislators, since the 1950s.

Exposing Alfred Kinsey (Again):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/25/exposing-alfred-kinsey-again/

From my article: “Rockefeller Institute funded the scientific “research” of sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, who worked tirelessly in the 1950s – traveling all over the country to testify before various lawmakers in order to reverse the harsh sentencing guidelines that were previously in place to punish pɛdøphilɛs for their criminal behavior, claiming that children were not truly being harmed, nor traumatized, by SA, but rather, by the antiquated and repressive notions of sɛxuality held by American society due to religious influence, which caused them to unnecessarily react to child SA with extreme alarm and anger.

Of course, a closer look at Kinsey’s experiments reveal that he was working with pɛdøphılɛs who he instructed to log and time their SA’s of the babies and children in order to record how long it took for these predators to force their victims to reach “ørgasm” (a measure that included crying, vomiting and convulsions) – all in order to “prove” Kinseyr’s repugnant hypothesis that human beings are “naturally sɛxual from birth”.

Meanwhile, Kinsey gathered much of his data about the “private” sexual habits of American men by visiting prisons to interview  ists, sɛx offenders, and other assorted criminals, while much of his data on women was gathered by visiting brothels and interviewing sex workers. His skewed “research” was used to assert many shocking claims, such as that almost half of men reported at least one homosɛxual experience (to climax) in their lifetime, and that most unmarried woman reported having at least one abortion in their lifetime, among other things.”

Rayn: Alex, I’ve been a slavery watchdog for almost a decade and a half, and I’ve witnessed the number of enslaved human beings rise from approximately 30 million victims to 40-50 million, which is at least a 30% increase in a short period of time. Slavery is at an all-time HIGH. And, forced marriage accounts for NEARLY HALF of the problem!

Here’s an article I wrote when the planet was at 30 million victims of modern slavery, back in February 2011:

RE-ABOLISH SLAVERY! Human Beings are “NOT FOR SALE”!:
https://acidrayn.com/2011/02/27/re-abolish-slavery-human-beings-are-not-for-sale/

Here’s three current reputable sources that verify there to be 50 million current victims of modern slavery. Compare this number to the 12 to 13 million individuals enslaved during the 350 year span of the transatlantic slave trade…

50 Million People in Modern Slavery: UN Report (2022):
https://www.un.org/en/delegate/50-million-people-modern-slavery-un-report

Global Estimates of Modern Slavery (2022):
https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-slavery-2022

Global Estimates of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage (2021):
https://publications.iom.int/books/global-estimates-modern-slavery-forced-labour-and-forced-marriage

According to the UN Report I cited above regarding victims of slavery, “22 million were trapped in forced marriage”. That’s almost HALF of slavery victims.

According to global estimates by International Labour Organization (ILO), about one in three (or roughly 37%) of the 22 million people trapped in forced marriages are children. This translates to approximately 8.1 million. Overall, women and girls account for 88% of all victims of forced marriage, and a significant portion of these child victims are forced to wed before the age of 15. Here’s the link:

Global Estimates of Modern Slavery (2017):
https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575479.pdf

As per ILO: “The true incidence of forced marriage, particularly involving children aged 16 and younger, is likely far greater than current estimates can capture; these are based on a narrow definition and do not include all child marriages. Child marriages are considered to be forced because a child cannot legally give consent to marry.”

Also important to note about victims of modern slavery, “6.3 million people were in forced commercial sexual exploitation”. Aside from this, “Women and girls remain disproportionately vulnerable, especially in commercial sexual exploitation (accounting for nearly four out of five victims).” Here is the link to that figure:

Human Trafficking Statistics (2026).
https://humantraffickingsearch.org/resource/human-trafficking-statistics/

As far as I’m concerned, your efforts to advocate for the alleged agency of a 12-year old girl regarding her “say” to “consent” to matrimony are extremely ill-informed and misguided, at best. But, when you use the phrase “any woman under legal age” in your reply (as you did), you are employing highly problematic language that does more to shield child predators from accountability than it could ever even hope to protect the innocence of children. I’ve written about this, previously:

“Underage Women” is Just “Children” With Extra Steps (to Help Shield Predators) (Feb 2026):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/19/underage-women-is-just-children-with-extra-steps-to-help-shield-predators/

Rayn: Alex, Here’s a harrowing story of forced marriage, trafficking, and child  that Thomas and I watched, yesterday:

I Survived My Family’s Most Brutal Events:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1DKdpW9p1p/

Rayn: Alex, Here’s a famous and highly publicized event of child trafficking that was even admitted to within the published memoirs of the perpetrator. Only recently, has this despicable crime finally resulted in CHARGES – and, only due to the changing public climate about the systematic abuse and enslavement of women in this Ba’al System of phallic worship, post-#MeToo, post-Weinstein, and post-Epstein…

Steven Tyler of Aerosmith Finally Facing Charges for Decades-Old Trafficking and Rape of Underage Girl:
https://acidrayn.com/2026/05/16/steven-tyler-of-aerosmith-finally-facing-charges-for-decades-old-trafficking-and-rape-of-underage-girl/

Tyler ‘ed a minor girl, talked her parents into giving him guardianship of her under false pretenses,, then trafficked her across state lines, fed her drugs and alcohol, ‘ed her more, eventually got her pregnant, then coerced into having an abortion, before abandoning her in a hotel room. He bragged about his crimes against her in a number of his memoirs that he had published as books. It’s a horror story, and the victim has receipts.

[Child ] Case Against Steve Tyler of Aerosmith May Proceed, Judge Rules:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/sex-abuse-case-against-steve-232853592.html

From the article: “Misley claimed in her lawsuit that Tyler invited her backstage when they first met in Portland in 1973, a month after her 16th birthday. She alleged she was groomed into a three-year relationship, during which Tyler became her legal guardian.

In his 2011 memoir, Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?, Tyler recalled the guardianship arrangement.

“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights, and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state,” he wrote.

Aerosmith Front Man Steven Tyler Accused of Sexually Assaulting Teen in 1970s, Lawsuit Claims:
https://abc7chicago.com/post/steven-tyler-aerosmith-allegations-lawsuit/12759157

“A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.”

“”DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.

“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.

The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.

In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.”

Thomas K.: Alex, Here’s a quick breakdown on the article that you shared: the men and women in that comment section weren’t cheering torture for its own sake — they were mocking him with the exact “maybe she shouldn’t have worn such a revealing outfit” phrasing men dismissively use toward sexual assault victims, as well as towards girls and women generally. It’s satire turned back on the source, not approval of violence. Reading it straightforwardly as them cheering on man-hating violence misses the actual point being made.

You keep asking what my exact criteria is for an acceptable age, so here it is: 18 isn’t arbitrary, it’s a compromise between two real risks. Below it, the body and judgment aren’t developed enough to safely carry a pregnancy or make permanent life decisions — that’s exactly why a minor needs parental consent for anything in the first place. Above it, restricting someone’s right to marry becomes an infringement on their own sovereignty. Eighteen is roughly where those two risks balance. A girl who waits for marriage until then loses nothing permanent. A girl married at 12 can lose her health, her life, her future, and that of her child(ren) — as has been the case historically, hence the reason why men suddenly decided it was a good idea for society as a whole to protect girls under the age of 18, when men are renowned throughout history for being all too often happy to sexually consume and discard women, girls, even boys, and sometimes even other men. This dark side of man is why there is a stereotypical father who interrogates, investigates, and intimidates his daughter’s suiters. It is why many religions and cultures mandate women and girls cover themselves to be ultra modest – because men have a bad reputation going back to the ancient times.

And notice: every example you’ve raised is a 12 year old girl. Would you make the same argument for a 12 year old boy who “definitely wants” a marriage with an adult woman? If not, then what’s different about the consent?

On Me Too: you said it had an agenda to make “entirely unverified” narratives. I pointed to Weinstein’s conviction, Weiner, and the still-unfolding Epstein files as verified, public outcomes that came directly out of that movement. You didn’t engage either one; you just repeated the same line. That’s not a rebuttal, that’s restating your prior conclusion.

Three more you skipped: the logic that lets parents and doctors permanently sterilize and surgically alter children runs on the same premise as 12 year old marriage consent — that a child’s stated wish overrides irreversible risk. Family members account for roughly 40% of child trafficking, so “the families both support it” isn’t the safeguard that you’re treating it as. And “respect of persons” in scripture means not weighting someone’s word by status (priest over commoner, man over woman AND vice versa), not “believe accusations without evidence,” which is the misreading you responded to.

One rebuttal:

If a woman is nonconsensually stimulated and, especially, penetrated then both the victim and the assistant are evidence because sex is messy and they will also both be interviewed. A woman running hysterically for help is evidence. It would be abnormal and highly unusual for a woman to have consensual sex with a man and then immediately run away hysterically for fake help. A wise council of the elders would take in all of the evidence, testimonies, compare the testimonies with the evidence, possibly check the scene of the crime for evidence, evaluate the moods and body language of both the defendant and the accuser, and may even possibly summon a higher authority to make a judgement; such as a prophet, priest, judge, or some other means to communicate with YHWH – and, if no judgement is made against him, then the defendant is released. If it is believed that the accuser made a false accusation in order to have an innocent man murdered, then she will become the defendant on trial for attempted murder and possibly condemned to death.

Alex B.: Rayn, let me start by granting all your stats and firmly state I hate sex trafficking, slavery and all forms of abuse.

I also support prevention.

And yet, that doesnt justify your response.

By your statistics, saying 50 million are slaves, 88% of sex trafficking is against young women in forced marriages, we are still left with a greater than 99% of marriages NOT being sex trafficking.

Even if it were greater than 1%, however, that wouldnt justify treating every young marriage as sex trafficking.

The only just way to run society is innocent until proven guilty.. If a young woman and a man (young or older) want to get married and the family supports it, it isnt justice to call it rape against her will in the name of prevention.

You are essentiall promoting tyranny in the name of preventige measures.

I hate evil, but your response does not resemble justice. It resembles fear and acting from fear to assert your own will over others.

I will say again – I am all for protecting women from sex trafficking. I hate it and support any just measures to protect them.

But even so, this doesn’t justify accusing her husband of rape against her will. It doesnt justify invalidating her own will and claiming she is incapable of consent.

that man has a SMALL chance of being a horrible man, but that doesnt justify condemning the MAJORITY of men that desire well for their wives.

Alex B.: Arvore, Who are you to tell her she isnt mature enough and assert your will over her?

At 12 years old, I am was quite capable of loyalty and commitment. Had I the financial means, I would have certainly made a wonderful husband. One of the greatest things about marriage is growing together. The husband and wife mature each other. Expecting the man to be complete and then the woman comes doesnt seem to me to be healthy or just.

This is really just your opinion. In fact, I havent heard a single thing from you EXCEPT personal opinions.

And Ill remind you that every single follower of messiah sold all their possessions and gave them to the apostles to distribute to the needy.

And although Peter was married, he still chose a poor life of only oats and bread.

And Jesus said “unless you sell all your posessions you cannot be my disciple.”

So your opinion is actually not in alignment with messiah’s teachings.

although I agree a man is primarily expected to be the provider, that doesnt necessarily mean having material wealth. He is also physical protection etc.

Now Im all for protecting women, and have defended them against others in my life. I have put my life on the line to defend women before, so it is out of line to raise any accusations of me wanting to mistreat people.

Nevertheless, I dont see any facts in your moral opinions. I have only seen claims and assumptions.

Lastly, Ill tell you that my wife and her family are extremely pleased with how Ive treated them. Ive done everything in my capacty to support the family.

And since my canadian wealth has translated greatly into Indian wealth, it looks like I gave fortunes to them.

So if we ignore the widow with 2 coins, I have been an extremely wonderful husband – and yet that isnt a just evaluation.

The widow with 2 coins was the real giver, not the wealthy. Judging a man’s value by his wealth is not justice. A husband and wife are supposed to build a life together. What woman is worthy of marrying if she comes to a wealthy man and demands what he spent his life building?

No, what is just is that she supports him as he builds up the provisions.

Arvore E.: Alex, How about a 50 years old woman marrying a 12 years old boy????? I honestly think you need to repent. Yeah. Actually let your own wife testify for you. Were you honest w/her about your work situation, wealth situation? Does she know the real truth of who you are???

Alex B.: Arvore, so you have given nothing except for personal opinions.

how is it you have the audacity to claim there are no laws except for the 10 commandments and yet also assert your own personal opinion on what is right and wrong?

Tell me this: on what justification do you condemn the 50 year old woman and 12 year old boy?

My position? Marriage is largely for children and that is not possible in those circumstances. also the man is supposed to be the head, and not the wife.

Man and woman have different roles. She is his helper, he is the one created to tend the garden.

Now do you presume to give me mere opinions, or do you intend to condemn them with something actually found within the scriptures?

I do not presume to condemn someone for something I cannot clearly give a reason for why.

My *intuition* may be that that is weird, but intuition is not justice in a court of law.

If you want to condemn them, cite your authority. currently you offer mere opinions and yet have the audacity to speak as if you have a moral high ground.

I have nothing to tell you about my personal marriage because you have brought forth condemnation without justification. You speak from your opinion and act like that makes you a valid authority.

That is just disingenuous.

if you spoke in good faith I would answer you in good faith but nothing you say is in good faith.

Rayn:Alex, Forced marriage is a form of s̲l̲a̲v̲e̲r̲y̲, first and foremost – although it may or may not involve trafficking. You appear to be somewhat conflating the two crimes. Also, I didn’t claim that the stats I provided were intended to “justify treating every young marriage as sex trafficking”. That’s just a strawman argument, so I won’t bother to address it. My position is principled and well-established: children do not have the ability to provide “consent” to matrimony – as it is a lifelong contract, and also includes sexual terms. My position isn’t a promotion of tyranny. It’s a promotion of reality, biology, free consent, full consent, informed consent, and protecting the youth from entering into lifelong contracts – most especially, with predatory adults – since children constitute a vulnerable class.

You are bold to claim “the only just way to run society is i̲n̲n̲o̲c̲e̲n̲t̲ until proven guilty” as your justification for denying children the right to retain their own i̲n̲n̲o̲c̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ from adult sexuality. That’s an extremely ironic statement and a weird flex. You are advocating for adult “innocence” over child innocence regarding the case of sex with a minor. THAT is what “does not resemble justice”. It resembles Talmudic inversion to claim children can “consent” to adult predators accessing their bodies and labor for life.

As I stated in my previous reply: “Children will always maintain the right to be free from the corrupting influence of adult sexuality… [the likes of which] unduly “challenge” (tamper with) the youth to turn away from their childhood innocence, and embrace adult themes that they are biologically incapable of understanding.” I say this very firmly, and on very solid ground.

“Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give [the Promised Land], and they shall possess it.”
– Deuteronomy 1:39

You said: “It resembles fear and acting from fear to assert your own will over others”, and on this point, I agree with you. In fact, I posit that adults marry children to assert their own will over them, and are acting from fear: fear of entering into a mutual and balanced intimate relationship with a consenting adult, and fear of engaging an intimate relationship dynamic not based in power and control.

You said: “If a young woman and a man (young or older) want to get married and the family supports it…” As far as biology is concerned, a “young woman” is a female between the ages of 18-21 years, so there is no issue with such an individual entering into matrimony. However, I don’t think you meant that, considering your earlier use of the illegitimate phrase “any woman under legal age”, so I’ll also add that if an adult wants to get married to a minor and the parents of the minor support it, even in localities where such an arrangement is possible, the parents would be required to “co-sign” their child’s “marriage contract”. And, this is because, as I’ve repeatedly stated, here: c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲r̲e̲n̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲n̲t̲; o̲n̲l̲y̲ ̲a̲d̲u̲l̲t̲s̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲.

I’ll reshare this, from my earlier reply, here…

“Child marriages are considered to be forced because a child cannot legally give consent to marry.”
https://www.iom.int/news/50-million-people-worldwide-modern-slavery

Even a so-called “marriage contract” between an adult and a child that incorporates a co-sign from the child’s parents is s̲t̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲s̲l̲a̲v̲e̲r̲y̲ in the form of “f̲o̲r̲c̲e̲d̲ ̲m̲a̲r̲r̲i̲a̲g̲e̲”, as the arrangement does not meet the legal requirement of “full and free consent”- which is the highest standard of voluntariness, and combines the elements of full consent (complete willingness) and free consent (total absence of pressure), while legally requiring informed consent as a prerequisite.

To begin, an adult who wants to marry a child has the benefit of operating with full agency and at full faculties, while the child does not. This lack of equal legal footing between the signing parties qualifies as the presence of “pressure”. Meanwhile, a child is a ward of their parents and a dependent of their household, so their involvement in such a “contract” qualifies as the presence of even greater “pressure”, as well as a glaring “conflict of interest” – factors which can be systematically leveraged with even more success in cases where the parents “co-sign” their child’s “marriage contract” in bad faith. And, in 50% of forced marriages, that’s been exactly the case.

“Family members were responsible for the vast majority of forced marriages. Most persons who reported on the circumstances of forced marriage were forced to marry by their parents (73 per cent) or other relatives (16 percent). Half of those living in forced marriages were coerced using emotional threats or verbal abuse. This includes the use of emotional blackmail – for example, parents threatening self-harm or asserting that the family’s reputation will be ruined – and threats of estrangement from family members, among other things. Physical or sexual violence and threats of violence were the next most used form of coercion to force a marriage (19 per cent).”

More proof to point in the case of any so-called “marriage contract” between an adult and a child that incorporates a co-sign from the child’s parents, it often fails another standard of a valid and legitimate contract based in full and free consent – namely, it does not secure the ability for the child to legally exit that “marriage contract”, as children cannot legally file for divorce in most localities. On top of that, it also often fails to secure the ability of the child to access various public services available to adults in relationships, as children cannot legally file a protective order in most localities. Finally, it also often fails to secure the ability of the child to access the various types of housing available to adults, as children cannot legally sign residential leases in most localities. Meanwhile, the adult party of said “marriage contract” retains full access to divorce procedings, protective orders, and housing options. The unequal legal standing between an adult and child in a so-called “marriage contract” is truly laid bare, when considering these factors.

“Perhaps most shockingly, children typically are not allowed to initiate a legal proceeding – such as seeking a protective order or even filing for divorce – unless they act through a guardian or other representative. This outrageous legal setup puts the “lock” in “wedlock.” The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights categorizes all child marriage as forced marriage.” Read about it, here:

Child Marriage in the U.S.
https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-in-the-u-s/

“[W]hereby child marriage is allowed due to exceptions, but anyone under the age of 18 faces huge barriers if they wish to leave a marriage. As a minor, they are often legally incapable of filing for a divorce, seeking support services independently, or setting up home alone.” Read about it, here:

Falling Through the Cracks: How Laws Allow Child Marriage to Happen in Today’s America:
https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/en/learning-resources/resource-centre/falling-cracks-laws-allow-child-marriage-happen-todays-america/

Rayn: Alex, not only are c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲r̲e̲n̲ ̲u̲n̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲f̲r̲e̲e̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲n̲t̲ due to the “pressure” that adults incidentally and evidentally exert over children by way of unequal legal standing, c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲r̲e̲n̲ ̲a̲r̲e̲ ̲a̲l̲s̲o̲ ̲u̲n̲a̲b̲l̲e̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲i̲n̲f̲o̲r̲m̲e̲d̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲n̲t̲, as they are not yet fully physically mature, hence, not yet in posession of the adult body required to adequately weigh the consequences of adult decisions. Also, children are dependents of their parents, having never lived independently in their whole lives, so they do not truly possess the adult perspective needed to evaluate the consequences of adult decisions, such as entering into a lifelong partnership contract, nor to understand their alternatives to doing so. Finally, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), pregnancy and childbirth present severe physical dangers to a developing child’s body. Globally, pregnancy complications are a leading cause of death for girls aged 15 to 19. A child cannot provide truly informed consent to an arrangement that poses such extreme risks to their physical health and bodily autonomy. Read about it, here:

Pregnancy and Childbirth Complications are the Leading Cause of Death Among 15-19 Year Old Girls:
https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-health/pregnancy-and-childbirth-complications-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-among-15-19-year-old-girls#tab=tab_1

“As of 2019, adolescents aged 15–19 years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) had an estimated 21 million pregnancies each year, of which approximately 50% were unintended and which resulted in an estimated 12 million births.” Read about it, here:

Adolescent Pregnancy:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy

“Several factors contribute to adolescent pregnancies and births. First, in many societies, girls are under pressure to marry and bear children. As of 2021, the estimated global number of child brides was 650 million: child marriage places girls at increased risk of pregnancy because girls who are married very early typically have limited autonomy to influence decision-making about delaying child-bearing and contraceptive use.”

That figure comes from UNICEF, which states: “Approximately 650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday.” Read about it, here:

Towards Ending Child Marriage (2021):
https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Towards-Ending-Child-Marriage-2021.pdf

650 million is approximately 7.83% of the total global population… That’s beyond an anomaly. It’s an ANNIHILATION!

A “marriage contract” between an adult and a child that incorporates a co-sign from the minor’s parents” s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲y̲ ̲d̲o̲e̲s̲ ̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲q̲u̲a̲l̲i̲f̲y̲ as a valid and legally-binding document. Truly, it’s nothing more than a glorified b̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲s̲a̲l̲e̲ ̲f̲o̲r̲ ̲s̲e̲x̲u̲a̲l̲ ̲a̲c̲c̲e̲s̲s̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲a̲ ̲c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲ that heavily-favors all the adults involved at the expense of the vulnerable and uncovered child victim. It’s a predatory, immoral and legally fraudulent practice that will continue to be wiped off the face of the earth, as YHWH and the body of Yahusha haMashiyach deliver these poor, young captives from their enslavement and consumption within this Beastly Ba’al System of Phallic worship run by the Epstein class and horizontally-enforced by a worldwide army of their apathetic, porn-addled, child flesh-lusting clients. All of these human race traitors are in leagues with the Adversary, and most will fight hard to prevent the innocent they devour from escapimg their net.

I’m a Voluntaryist, as I told you before, and I’m very well-versed in a̲̲̲l̲̲̲l̲̲̲ ̲̲̲t̲̲̲h̲̲̲r̲̲̲e̲̲̲e̲̲̲ ̲̲̲p̲̲̲i̲̲̲l̲̲̲l̲̲̲a̲̲̲r̲̲̲s̲̲̲ ̲̲̲o̲̲̲f̲̲̲ ̲̲̲C̲̲̲O̲̲̲N̲̲̲S̲̲̲E̲̲̲N̲̲̲T̲̲̲: F̲U̲L̲L̲,̲ ̲F̲R̲E̲E̲ ̲&̲ ̲I̲N̲F̲O̲R̲M̲E̲D̲. Consent is the cornerstone of a free, just and peaceful society. Protecting children from predators is a duty.

Alex B.: Rayn, So the first thing needs to be established: what is a child?

this seems to be a key issue. What exact age does someone stop being a child?

The current claim is that a person’s brain only finished developing at the age of 26.

by that logic, would it not be right to force marriage to wait until the age of 26?

I dislike magical/arbitrary claims. Historical culture treated 12 year olds as an adult. Our culture treats 18-year-olds as adults.

I’m pretty sure 12 years old was based on her period. When someone has their first period, their body has decided it is ready to have a child. Periods are for the purpose of having babies.

So objectively, her body has matured for the purpose of having a baby at her first period.

That logically makes sense. 18 years old does not make sense, since it has zero specific criteria that I know of.

How are you determining what qualifies as a child or an adult outside of personal opinion?

“It I’d a promotion of reality, biology, free consent, full consent, informed consent, and protecting the youth from entering into lifelong contracts – most especially with predatory adults.”

Reality starts by acknowledging that sex outside of marriage is a great sin. Hormones fly at young ages, for the purpose of having children. In our generation, people are sneaking around and having sex outside of marriage because we are forbidding marriage. If we want to consider biology and risks, that is one to consider.

Secondly, free consent: you are explicitly denying the free consent of said girl that explicitly wants to get married.

you are asserting your will over her, telling her that her will to marry is invalid.

As for full consent, you can very well tell a person at that age what the expectations of marriage are, what the risks are etc. they aren’t stupid because at that age I wasn’t stupid. I think your claim is just dumb that a person at that age cannot properly consent because I remember my days at that age very well. Although my life was focused on robotics competitions, I very well knew commitment and very much was desiring to get married and would have done anything to take care of my wife.

So it doesn’t appear to me that you are defending any form of consent, but rather denying them the right to consent.

And I don’t see it as protection from lifelong contracts. Marriage is one of the best methods of growth. Nobody helps you grow more than your spouse.

In context, I don’t see how your position makes logical sense. It does protect from a small group of predatory people, you cannot simply assume a relationship is or is going to be predatory.

“You are advocating for adult innocence over child innocence regarding the case of sex with a minor.”

Firstly, minor is a made up term. It is a term from THIS generation that would have been laughed at throughout history.

What qualifies as a minor and what qualifies as an adult? In history, a teen was an adult. Only now do we treat them as children.

We develop our whole lives. Nobody is ever truly prepared for the things that come at any point. Expecting people to be fully developed doesn’t seem realistic in any sense. We grow through our experiences.

I’m not defending adult predators. There is ALWAYS an imbalance of power in every relationship. No relationship is ever truly equal, but the stronger can very well protect the weaker – both from outside threats and also from failing to manage their own desires.

I’m not advocating for “adult innocence” over children. I’m advocating for the only just society where EVERYONE is presumed innocent until shown guilty.

Your claim is entirely a straw man. In the case I gave, EVERYONE vetted everyone. There is no predator involved and it is wrong to assume as such.

I don’t need to address the next one because you haven’t and I daresay cannot define a child. If you want a fully mature person, you have to wait until 30. And after them, childbirth gets 5% more health risks each year.

That method of doing things makes no logical sense. The only logical way to do it is to go by what our body is designed to do and our capability of doing our job.

In the case of a woman, a period is explicitly for the purpose of having children. In the case of the man, he needs to provide for her.

Any other criteria is arbitrary. At 12, I was fully mature enough emotionally and physically to be a loyal, dedicated good husband. I just wasn’t financially prepared or experienced with the world. Anyone who claims they are too immature seems to be making stuff up since I remember my 12th year very well and know I would have been a fantastic husband.

On the contrary to your next point, no such marriage exists with equality. The man is ALWAYS stronger. Marriage was never designed to be equal – the man was made to be the protector.

And no business can be run by 2 bosses. You have to have one lead (the man that is providing and protecting). The woman’s role is for children and house management.

The only equality here is that both are precious, valuable and necessary. I’m fully advocating for mutual relationships. You are actually the one opposing mutual relationships by invalidating them. You are the one promoting fear, rather than harmony.

In the case of Ruth and Boaz, tradition is that he was 80 and she was 40. And she was praised for choosing the older man. But the context was that he had to take her with the land, since marriage was primarily for the provisions and protection of the woman. It wasn’t about equality. Marriage was never about equality. It was about provisions and protection of the woman.

You just said that a female is a woman at 18-21. That is entirely arbitrary.

Her period signals her body has matured for raising children. Most people claim her brain finishes at 26. Everything peaks at 30 and then declines. Experience-wise, people in their 20s this generation have no idea how to run families or finances or anything really in the world. In that metric, they are still immature.

But biology, which has a purpose, starts doing periods for babies at 12

You keep talking about “only adults can consent”, but from my position you cannot even define an child or an adult. It is all arbitrary.

I say this quite sincerely: I’m not speaking out of any personal agenda I hate abuse and mistreatment. I love my wife that is 2 year younger than myself.

Even in our relationship, though: she currently works more and harder than myself, but we often tease each other by her pinching me until I flex that I’m much stronger than her.

We will never be equal and were never intended to be – and yet I would die for my wife, protecting her.

My big issue, here, is that you guys are basically fabricating definitions to uphold a personal agenda based on prejudice.

As far as I can tell, none of you can clearly define an adult or a child in any moral sense, yet make such harsh judgements as if you do. And despite the fact that marriage primarily benefits women, you assume the worst of any man that doesn’t match your criteria.

I’m opposed to forced marriages, but that isn’t what this is about. This is about you denying her the freedom to marry who she wants.

This whole issue is just your personal opinion of justice, opinion of people, opinion of definitions.

I see no objective metric for maturity, no objective metric for marriage, no objective metric for almost any moral claim. Just opinions based on your interpretation of justice from statistics.

Alex B.: Rayn, also, at 12 years old I had my own will, my own thoughts, a desire to marry, the willingness to take responsibility and a body fully capable of raising children.

if you had told me I was incapable of consent because I was a mere child, I would have internally thought you were stupid.

I was certainly capable of consent, loyalty, commitment, and was willing to do everything to be an amazing husband.

The only thing I lacked was world experience.

Given this, I think it is quite arrogant to say that a 12 year old is not able to consent – especially when you cannot even clearly define what age someone is a child or an adult.

It is all arbitrary. The body is TELLING you to have a child when it gets its first period or a guy starts having natural emissions.

The body has declared itself ready to have a child, and is telling them to do it.

So to claim that they are a mere child incapable of consent, seems to be based on nothing but prejudice and arbitrary judgements.

It isn’t based on the biology of reproduction. It is based on when your brain fully develops.

It is only based on when you guys decided the risks are low enough.

That isn’t moral. That is just an assertion of personal prejudice.

I’m not trying to push for 12 year old marriages. I do think that marriages in late 20s or 30s are generation suicide, and retarded, but I’m not trying to push for a specific age.

I’m simply pointing out that the metric used for judgement is inconsistent and arrogant and unjust.

Nothing in your metric justifies the prejudice I see.

Rayn: I’m almost done writing a reply to your latest response. In the meantime, our communications here have inspired me to finally finish the next article in a series I began writing back in February.

The War on Women, and the Inextricable Connection Between Pørnøgraphy, Child Sɛx Trafficking, Slavery and Jeffrey Epstein (June 2026):
https://acidrayn.com/2026/06/23/the-war-on-women-and-the-inextricable-connection-between-pornography-child-s%c9%9bx-trafficking-slavery-and-jeffrey-epstein/

Rayn: Alex, I’ll be direct with you: I’ve already answered almost every single one of these points, with citations. The fact that you’re recycling previous arguments I’ve already thoroughly dismantled tells me you either didn’t read what I wrote, or you’re hoping repetition will wear me down. It won’t. So, for the record, let’s go through this one final time. I’ll address your new point, and for the rest, I’ll simply redirect you back to what I’ve already written, since repeating myself in full would be a poor stewardship of my time.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝?❞ — 𝐈 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭.
This is not a mystery. Legally, anyone under 18 is a child or minor — that’s the standard definition used by the Cornell Law School Wex Legal Dictionary AND the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Biologically, according to the Cleveland Clinic, puberty typically ends around ages 15–17 for girls and 16–17 for boys. Eighteen is not arbitrary — it covers the full range of puberty timelines with a reasonable buffer. A girl who waits until adulthood to marry loses nothing permanent. A girl married at 12 can lose her health, her future, and her life. The WHO confirms that pregnancy complications are a leading cause of death for girls aged 15–19. That’s not opinion — that’s biology.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐀 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲❞ — 𝐍𝐨, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧❜𝐭.
Menstruation signals the beginning of reproductive development, not the completion of it. The WHO reports that as of 2019, adolescents aged 15–19 in low- and middle-income countries had approximately 21 million pregnancies per year, roughly 50% of which were unintended. These are not thriving, healthy outcomes. They are a crisis. A child’s body beginning a biological process is not the same as that body being ready to safely carry a pregnancy to term. These are not equivalent claims, and conflating them is dangerously misleading.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐘𝐨𝐮❜𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭❞ — 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬.
I’ve said this already and I’ll say it again: c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲r̲e̲n̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲n̲o̲t̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲v̲i̲d̲e̲ ̲f̲u̲l̲l̲,̲ ̲f̲r̲e̲e̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲i̲n̲f̲o̲r̲m̲e̲d̲ ̲c̲o̲n̲s̲e̲n̲t̲. As a Voluntaryist, I am very well-versed in all three pillars of consent. A child is a dependent of their parents, having never lived independently. They do not possess the adult perspective needed to evaluate the consequences of a lifelong contract — one that, it bears repeating, includes sexual terms. Furthermore, in most localities, a minor cannot file for divorce, cannot obtain a protective order, and cannot sign a residential lease. The adult party in such an arrangement retains full legal agency. The child retains none. That isn’t consent — that’s a b̲i̲l̲l̲ ̲o̲f̲ ̲s̲a̲l̲e̲. As I stated previously: “Children will always maintain the right to be free from the corrupting influence of adult sexuality.” And you are bold, indeed, to invoke “innocent until proven guilty” as justification for stripping children of their own innocence. That is a Talmudic inversion if I’ve ever seen one.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝟏𝟐, 𝐬𝐨 𝟏𝟐-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫-𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭❞ — 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐝𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝.
This is the one new argument you’ve introduced, so I’ll address it plainly: your self-assessed emotional readiness at 12 years old is not a legal standard, a biological standard, or a statistical standard. The law protects the class, not the exception. The fact that you feel you would have been a “fantastic husband” at 12 is entirely unverifiable, and even if true, it would be statistically irrelevant to the millions of children who are actively being harmed under the exact framework you’re defending. We don’t dismantle child protection laws because one person believes they were precocious.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐭, 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐭❜𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞❞ — 𝐈❜𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬.
According to the ILO, 73% of forced marriages are arranged by parents, and 16% by other relatives. That means nearly 9 out of 10 forced marriages involve the very family members you’re citing as a safeguard. As I wrote previously, and as Thomas also pointed out: “the families both support it” is not the protection you’re treating it as. It is, statistically, one of the primary mechanisms of the crime itself.

𝐎𝐧 ❞❜𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐨𝐫❜ 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞-𝐮𝐩 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦❞ — 𝐒𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday. That is the direct legacy of the historical normalization you’re defending. As I stated previously: “That’s beyond an anomaly. It’s an ANNIHILATION.” The fact that child marriage was widely practiced throughout history is precisely why we now have 650 million victims of it still living on this earth. Historical prevalence is not moral justification — it is the indictment.

𝐎𝐧 ❞𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧❞ — 𝐍𝐨. 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐬.
My replies in this thread have cited the UN, WHO, ILO, UNICEF, Cornell Law School, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, the US Department of Justice, peer-reviewed academic studies, and multiple legal databases. Your replies have cited your own memory of being 12 years old, your interpretation of scripture, and your feelings about your marriage. I’ll let the contrast speak for itself.

❞𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐦𝐛, 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝. 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐲.❞ — 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐛𝐬 𝟑𝟏:𝟖-𝟗
Children are the poor and needy of this conversation, and those who are trapped in forced marriages around this world have no voice in this debate being conducted entirely by adults about whether adults should have access to their bodies and their futures. We speak for them. I’ll keep opening my mouth on their behalf, as long as necessary.

Rayn: Alex, my post 20 minutes ago was in reply to your 10:11pm response. As far as your follow-up 10:34pm response, which I saw after posting the one above, I’ll quickly address it, too:

Noted — you’ve now walked back advocating for 12-year-old marriages, which is the first sensible thing you’ve said on this topic. As for your claim that my standard is “arbitrary”: I never used brain development as my metric. I used puberty completion, legal definitions sourced from Cornell Law and the UN, and the three pillars of full, free and informed consent. My position is principled, You have consistently argued against positions I didn’t take. Everything else in your latest comment is a restatement of what you already said, which I already answered. My reply stands.

Arrogant, you say? No. P̲r̲i̲n̲c̲i̲p̲l̲e̲d̲. There is nothing arrogant about standing on documented legal standards, biological science, and the testimony of 650 million living victims. Arrogance is a man declaring that his own unverifiable childhood self-assessment overrides the UN, the WHO, the ILO, Cornell Law, and the lived suffering of hundreds of millions of girls. Arrogance is insisting that a child’s body “declaring itself ready” via menstruation is a more valid standard than the World Health Organization confirming that pregnancy complications are a leading cause of death for girls aged 15–19. Arrogance is demanding that everyone justify their definitions to your satisfaction, while offering nothing but personal feelings and selective scripture as your own. I didn’t invent these standards. As a biology major, both in high school and at Stony Brook University, I simply read them, cited them, and applied them consistently — which is the opposite of arbitrary, and the opposite of arrogant.

Thomas K.: Alex, Arbitrary, according to Merriam-Webster, is: “chosen, decided, etc. seemingly at random or on a whim rather than in a reasoned or methodical way” or “based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic value of something.” The legal age of consent being set at 18 is based on a compromise between protecting innocent children and respecting the self-sovereignty of adults – chosen based on biology, not whim. The mental/emotional maturity age of 26 you keep referencing is not a factor in that choice. There are physical differences between children and adults. My explaining this to you disproves your claim that 18 was chosen arbitrarily.

You said “Im not actually asserting ANY age. I really dont care what the actual age is.” I noticed that. So did every person who has ever flagged you. So here is the same question you asked me, turned back on you: what age is a person allowed to decide their own desires? What age is a person able to decide they want to marry? You also said “marriage is primarily for children” – so if a 4-year-old decides she wants to marry an adult man, and both families are happy about it, is that acceptable to you?

The percentage risk that is “acceptable” is this: the child enters adulthood, meaning all of her sex organs have reached full development and maximum reproductive viability. That is not arbitrary. That is biology.

“Why is it your right to tell her she isn’t allowed to do something risky?” It is not a right – it is the responsibility of adults to protect children and raise up emotionally stable generations capable of secure relationships.

“Intent is irrelevant” is not a dismissal – it is the point. Civil rights for and protection of the innocent and vulnerable do not require evil intent to be justified. A drunk driver who kills someone did not intend to kill anyone. Intent changes nothing for the victim.

You said you wouldn’t endorse a 12-year-old boy marrying because he cannot provide. Yet a 12-year-old girl is not equipped to carry a pregnancy, survive childbirth, or raise children either. You hold the girl to no standard of readiness whatsoever while holding the boy to a provider standard. That is not a principled position. That is a double standard that reveals whose interests you are actually centered on.

“Consent doesn’t matter when the choice is evil.” Agreed – and the scriptural meaning of evil is “damaging” or “harmful.” An adult man with adult-sized genitals and an adult man’s physical strength marrying and impregnating a 12-year-old girl is harmful by definition, regardless of anyone’s stated intentions.

On the subject of believing accusers: you argued that believing women would have destroyed your life, citing a situation where a girl and her mother accused you of predatory behavior simply for asking her to hang out. Those people are not here to give their side. What I can say with certainty is that many of your public comments are significant red flags that have made you look untrustworthy around women and, now, children. That is not a false accusation. That is people reading what you are voluntarily expressing.

I’ll also say this directly, because it is relevant: I was molested by a woman when I was 14. A man raped me the year before that. Of all the defenses I have heard of adult women being intimate with boys, not one came from a woman – they all came from men. The argument that society ignores male victims is real, but you are not making it in defense of male victims. You are making it to deflect from the subject of adult men having access to girls while also ignoring the fact that it is predominately men who are not only ignoring male victims, but often tell them that they were “lucky” to have had such an experience.

There is literally no permanent loss for a person waiting until 18 before entering a lifelong covenant – especially one where, by your own words, the primary goal is to produce children.

Finally: I don’t know what your intention was in tagging my wife Rayn into this thread. By your own stated framework I am the head of my household, so going around me to her is strange regardless of intent. Even by our own framework, where Rayn and I are equals in one-flesh matrimony, I cannot find a charitable reading of why you would tag my wife to support your position rather than inviting your own wife to publicly share her views as a woman.

The reason people keep flagging you is not a mystery. The only people who invest serious moral energy into building a case for why a 12-year-old can consent to marriage and sexual access with an adult are people who want that access. You are telling the world, publicly and permanently, that you have spent considerable thought on the romantic and sexual dynamics of 12-year-old girls with adult men – while raising no equivalent argument for 12-year-old boys with adult women. You, a recently married adult man, are mounting a zealous defense of grown men having access to and control over a 12-year-old girl. Those women were not misreading you. They were reading your fruit. So is everyone else.

Alex B.: Rayn, I’ve read each of your points, but it really still comes to this:

You are using a legal standard, not a moral standard.

You are just falling in line with what today’s general consensus is. The general consensus of age isn’t a moral standard for maturity.

It doesn’t matter whether I was an exception or not – for you to tell me that I cannon consent is overstepping. You are asserting your will upon someone like myself and then claiming you are moral for doing so because of the POSSIBILITY I may regret it.

Even if I was an exception, that doesn’t warrant calling my spouse a rapist and condemning them as wicked.

Even if you have stats of horrible things that have happened, you haven’t made a MORAL argument.

You can make any claim you want, but nothing you said was related to morals.

Even if families are flawed, there is no better metric I know of for evaluation. Just because the parents signed off for the majority of forced marriages doesn’t make the majority of marriages forced.

If 99% of forced marriages were signed off by the parents, that doesn’t matter when the actual number of forced marriages is less than 1%.

The logic simply doesn’t follow.

“650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday.” You make that sound like a tragedy. That sounds like a GREAT thing. Families keep growing, population keeps flourishing.

Unless she was FORCED against her will into the marriage, there is no reason to treat it as a tragedy.

I’ll say clearly – a 17-year old is NOT a child. One doesn’t magically become an adult at 18, and to invoke general consensus to apply an 18-year rule is to simply be a follower of general consensus and is devoid of any moral reasoning.

Our societies are WORSE today than the past. We are DEGENERATING each year. Each year the general happiness DROPS.

Ever since we began the feminist revolution, suicide and depression and abortions have multiplied.

This is the legacy being created by your metrics.

You are citing many opinions, but not making any moral claims.

I’m not asserting anything except that your metrics are inconsistent. I’m not telling anyone whether they should or should not get married.

The only opinions I have given are 1) we are declining 2) arbitrary judgements are stupid.

Beyond that, I have ONLY scrutinised your metrics.

So that means you are the one with opinions. I’m only scrutinising your metrics and saying they are inconsistent.

There is no reason to care about the opinions of masses. If their logic is inconsistent, they ought to be disregarded.

And I see your logic is inconsistent.

You are telling people what and what not to do.

I am not. Actually I am – I am saying we need to have sustainable families that are preserving our population, and I’m asserting that your metrics are destroying our society.

Your metrics are creating more division, more hostility, less births, more depression.

All the stats show people are more divided, more suicidal, more unhappy.

I assert that your method of determining right and wrong is the very reason this is happening.

Making moral judgements without moral metrics creates this.

Nobody has given a moral reason to oppose the marriage of 2 loving people below 18. You have only looked at risk assessment and decided that they shouldn’t be permitted to take more of a risk than you want them to.

I dont see any justice in this way of thinking – only arrogance.

Rayn: Alex, Let’s be clear about what just happened here. You’ve abandoned every factual argument — because they failed — and retreated to “but you haven’t made a MORAL argument.” So let’s address that directly.

Legal standards don’t exist in a vacuum. They are the codified expression of hard-won moral consensus, built on centuries of documented harm. The age of majority exists precisely BECAUSE generations of children — overwhelmingly girls — were consumed by a system that treated them as property. Law and morality are not opposites. Law, at its best, is morality made enforceable.

You say my biological arguments aren’t moral ones. But menstruation being your moral standard for marriage-readiness isn’t a moral argument either — it’s a biological one. By your own logic, you’ve made no moral argument whatsoever. You’ve simply declared that whatever the body does, society should permit. That reasoning would justify a great deal more than child marriage, and I trust you see where that leads.

Now, your most revealing statement: “650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday. That sounds like a GREAT thing.”
I want everyone reading this thread to pause on that. Six hundred and fifty million girls — many married before age 15, many to men decades older, many unable to leave, many dying in childbirth, many trapped in conditions the ILO classifies as forced marriage and the UN classifies as slavery — and your response is that this “sounds like a GREAT thing.” That is not a philosophical position. That is a disclosure. You have told us exactly what moral framework you’re operating from, and it isn’t one that recognizes the humanity of girls as self-evident.

‘Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’ — Yeshayah (Isaiah) 5:20

You also claim you’re “not asserting anything” — only scrutinizing my metrics — and then in the same breath assert that feminism caused the suicide epidemic, that my metrics are “destroying society,” and that sustainable population growth requires earlier marriage. Those ARE moral claims. You are making them while simultaneously denying that moral claims are even possible in this conversation. You cannot have it both ways.

Finally: You claim “Nobody has given a moral reason to oppose the marriage of 2 loving people below 18.” I’ve continued to give you one, plainly: a child cannot give full, free and informed consent to a lifelong contract because they are legally, financially, physically and experientially dependent on the very adults proposing the arrangement. That dependency is structural coercion. Structural coercion invalidates consent. Invalidated consent makes the arrangement predatory by definition, regardless of anyone’s stated feelings about it. That is a moral argument. It is also a legal one. The two are not mutually exclusive — and the fact that you keep insisting they are tells me you have no answer to it.

“For everyone who is practising evil matters hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” — Yoḥanan 3:20

Arvore E.: Alex, There is where you fail. Men are head of NOBODY. they are rather the tail. Jesus said he is the vine, the male and female are the branches. The Paulinian and Baal worshipper put Phallus worship in place, which is far from Yahuah’s commands. Is your wife a minor? There is a big reason a man don’t want to look at a woman in th eeyes. Why??? Becausee she will hold him accountable. But you wantt to cut her righteous head and just look at her body. That is typical male controlled by Satan’s tail. Yet Jesus told you and a part of your body causes you to sin, cut it off. Power worship has NOTHING TO DO W/RIGHTEOUSNESS. A man just looking for ways to exploit women’s bodies is a predator. He is all flesh running day and night trying to satisfy Satan’s tail. No self control.

Arvore E.: Alex, The tail are all failed males preaching they are the head. you still didn’t tell me if your wife knows who you truly are. Did you tell her the whole truth on how you lived before you went there? Was she beguiled?

Arvore E.: Alex, Jesus also said he will prepare a place for his people as the bridegroom ought to. Plus THE ONLY REASON A MAN CAN LEAVE FATHER AND MOTHER IS TO JOIN A WOMAN. In Genesis it says that and Jesus said same. Plus Jesus came to pay the price to be able to marry her, YET HE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE FATHER, when the place is ready and the Father sees he is ready for marriage then he can come and stay in her and not leave. They become ONE HOLY BODY. not this Baal system of men expecting women to worship the Dragon Tail

Alex B.: Thomas, “The legal age of consent being set at 19 is based on a compromise between protecting innocent children and respecting the self-sovereignty of adults – chosen based on biology, not whim.”

It may be chosen based on those things, but it is still arbitrary because the risk assessment is based on a decided acceptable risk.

Whatever statistics you cite, you still haven’t given a moral justification for what risks are acceptable and what risks are not acceptable.

“What age is a person allowed to decide their own desires?”

Any and every age, with the guidance of their parents. A 4 year old can assert their desires, and the parents factor that into their judgement of what is best for the individual.

Obviously a 4-year old cannot have a child, so sex is not permissible in the context that sex is for children.

The PARENTS could decide to grant the marriage, with the criteria that they wait for a certain age before having children.

I don’t claim to have an opinion except that the body has decided it is ready to have a child when the first period happens. That is why periods exist and the body is agreeing to have a child.

At least I can say that much, but I say very little about age. I COULD discern whether my child is mature enough to get married by watching them, but that is a case by case basis.

Nobody knows better than the parents as a general rule.

This is why I take issue with your absolute claims as an outsider. Unless you have the ability to discern the intentions of the parents, you do not know better than the parents. Additionally, unless you really know the child you really don’t have the right to comment on if the individual is ready or if the marriage is good.

You are an outsider, not involved.

“Maximum reproductive viability” is not a good qualifier. The body is able to have a child earlier, and then the risks increase with age.

There is a peak, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have children before or after the peak if you so desire.

Nobody gets mad when a 35 year old has a child, despite there being 25% more risk than a 30-year-old having a child.

“It is the responsibility of adults to protect children and raise up emotionally stable generations capable of secure relationships.”

That starts with the parents, not outsiders. Outsiders shouldn’t be commenting unless they have an inside view.

And if you haven’t noticed, western culture is declining, not improving. The standards you guys are going by are actually killing off our generation.

We are having less than 2 kids per marriage and the hostility between genders is plummeting.

The standards being used are flawed.

A drunk driver can be punished, but the law isn’t a moral arbitrator.

If he was drunk and then drove to save a person having a heart attack, he may be legally prosecuted but publically praised.

Laws don’t always match justice and should not be a metric for making moral claims.

A drunk person could be MORALLY prosecuted for reckless behaviour – drinking does not benefit our health in any way, and driving afterwards could be considered reckless.

Alex B.: Thomas, The same metric doesn’t apply to marriage, since we NEED at least close to 3 people just to keep the population up. Additionally, marriage can be the best method of protecting a woman’s future.

If the parents, foreseeing their decline, give their daughter to a man that would cherish her and protect her, that very well may be the most kind act they could do for her – yet you would condemn them.

A person having a period IS equipped to carry a pregnancy, but your personal opinion on acceptable risks claims that the risks are too high until you deem them low enough.

We cannot just make up ideas about acceptable and unacceptable risks.

I do hold the girl to a standard of readiness – she has a job to manage the house and have children.

But after her period, she CAN have children and capacity to manage a house is individual. It could very well be that he needs to teach her how to manage the house and carry some of her load until she is ready, but that is a benevolence on his part.

Both sides have expectations, but your risk assessment is that of an outsider. Unless you know how bad she wants the marriage and what she can and cannot do, you cannot simply make a moral judgement that she cannot get married.

An adult man with adult sized genitals can still hurt a woman of his own age. Size is individual, not purely age-based. And the potential acceptable risk is individual, not moral.

For me, I’m willing to get close enough to a deadly snake (at least before I was married) that my odds of being bitten could have been considered too high. I considered myself able to manage the risk.

For me, I considered myself within the acceptable risk. For you, I may have not been within the acceptable risk.

You cannot make a blanket moral statement on what the acceptable moral risk is.

Each person needs to decide for themselves if the benefits are greater than the risks. Outsiders are just outsiders. Their opinion doesn’t matter.

I don’t really care about your accusations against me. You can have any opinion you want. I know my intentions and I can see that you are imposing moral judgements on legal and prudent metrics.

If your position was moral-based, I would take you more seriously. I would give more consideration to your opinions if you stopped crossing convenience and prudence with morality.

Morals and conveniences cannot be crossed. Legal frameworks and moral frameworks lie in different jurisdictions.

And frankly, there is no reason to consider legal frameworks AT ALL, except for convenience purposes.

What I care about is MORAL judgements.

And actually, I get along very well with people these days. I have many great relationships, and they all know I am respectable and trustworthy.

You can believe or disbelieve me.

I’ve seen the injustices and I’ve seen the inconsistency and hypocrisy and so I speak up.

I saw the Christian’s disregard scriptures for convenience.

I saw the messianic disregard various scriptures for convenience.

I see culture using personal opinions to make moral judgements.

I’m sick of the inconsistency. Either use consistent metrics or stop claiming to have any metrics at all.

Morals lie with moral arguments. Legalities lie with legal arguments.

Convenience lies with convenience arguments.

If you want to make a MORAL claim, make moral judgements – not practical judgements.

And I’m sorry you were molested. Such a person ought to be put to death. I take those things very seriously.

The reason I’m not talking about male victims is because I never see people outrage against male victims. I only see feminists outrage against men and their treatment of women.

I’m not deflecting from anything.

There are truly vile and evil men. I’ve never disagreed with this, and I’d have them put to death. My opposition is to believing any claim without evidence, condemning potentially innocent people due to mere accusations.

I didnt even know Ryan was your wife. I tagged her because she kept liking your comments, which I considered to be deflecting from my points.

Since she had an opinion (liking your comments), I wanted her to speak up instead of watching from the sidelines.

Alex B.: Rayn, I didn’t abandon facts. I simply said that your statistics don’t justify moral condemnation.

You gave statistics (made to look a lot worse than they were, since 80% of 1% is still less than 1% of total) and made a moral inference from there.

I said “a moral claim cannot be made by your opinion on how we deal with said statistics.”

I didnt abandon facts. I challenge that what you do with said facts isn’t justified.

“Centuries of documented harm.” A few get harmed, a lot are blessed.

Again, this is just your interpretation of how the stats should be handled.

Majority of the victims were girls – agreed. But that doesn’t make the majority victims.

Bad handling of statistics.

“Were consumed by a system that treated them as property.”

I’m essentially the property of my boss. We are all treated as slaves within our system. What matters is how said relationships are treated. My boss tells me what to do and I do it, and he treats me (hopefully) well.

The woman marries the man and he is supposed to provide for her.

Condemnation of slavery only works if we assume that the slaves are mistreated. Many cases of slavery were treated as a temporary contract that they could continue or abandon afterwards.

You are using inflammatory language that isn’t representing the situation accurately.

Law is not morality made enforceable. Law is the opinion of men. Morality is a higher form of justice that doesn’t rely on opinions.

I’m not even arguing that menstruation necessarily is the moral standard. But if you want to make a biological argument for morality, then you cannot ignore what the purpose of menstruation is.

The purpose of the body functions is being ignored, and then statistics are being wielded as weapons of opinion.

Why does menstruation exist, if not to have children? You ignore menstruation, yet still cite Biology. How can you ignore the purpose of each function and then supplement your opinion on how stats should be handled?

I never supported forced marriages. I never supported death. I never supported anything like that.

Making such claims is disingenuous. I celebrated HAPPY marriages

You are just straight up misrepresenting me. This is just lies and slander at this point.

I do make moral claims about femenism, but that is separate from age of marriage. Marriage was never about equality. It was about provisions and support, carrying the family line.

Feminism has turned a successful family into a competition and hostility.

Saying women are equal to men is just delusion. Men and woman have different skill sets and to pretend otherwise is to just be dishonest, which is a moral claim.

We NEED mothers. We don’t need female workers. This is necessary for being fruitful and multiplying, and even maintaining population.

Since I DO claim that being fruitful and multiplying is a moral duty, I claim that opposition to said way of living is immoral.

That is my moral claim – not my claim that you cannot make a moral claim about age based on your interpretation of data.

Again…. 18 is a made up number. Saying anyone under 18 is a child has no reason to be taken seriously. Marriage isn’t about magical definitions of adulthood. It is about support and children.

Saying “a child cannot give full consent” and then making up a definition of a child isn’t remotely logical and ignores the truth of why marriage exists.

Anyhow, I’ll finish there.

I just hear opinion after opinion. I don’t hear clearly defined words, clearly defined acceptable metrics or anything.

It has all been your interpretation on how to handle data. The only objective thing you have given is statistics.

Rayn: You say I’m misrepresenting you, now, so let’s use your exact words.

You wrote: “650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday. That sounds like a GREAT thing.”

You wrote: “Young families ought to be celebrated.”

You wrote: “Condemnation of slavery only works if we assume that the slaves are mistreated.”

You wrote: “A 17-year old is NOT a child.”

You wrote: “I think it is quite arrogant to say that a 12 year old is not able to consent.”

You wrote: “In the case where the girl DEFINITELY wants to marry, what age is her opinion valid? And who are you to tell her that her opinion is not valid?”

You wrote: “At 12 years old I had my own will, my own thoughts, a desire to marry, the willingness to take responsibility and a body fully capable of raising children.”

You wrote: “If you had told me I was incapable of consent because I was a mere child, I would have internally thought you were stupid.”

And earlier in this thread, you referred to children as “any woman under legal age” — a linguistic maneuver I’ve written about previously, because it does one thing above all else: it reframes children as women in order to make adult access to them sound more acceptable. I documented exactly this pattern here:

“‘Underage Women’ is Just ‘Children’ With Extra Steps (to Help Shield Predators)”:
https://acidrayn.com/2026/02/19/underage-women-is-just-children-with-extra-steps-to-help-shield-predators/

I didn’t need to misrepresent you. You represented yourself — in your own words, in your own comments, in this very thread. The most damaging characterization of your position isn’t mine. It’s yours.

You call this “lies and slander.” That’s a serious accusation, and it deserves a serious response. Slander requires a false statement. Everything I’ve attributed to you in this thread is either a direct quote from your own comments or a logical conclusion drawn from them — and I’ve been transparent about which is which throughout. If you believe I’ve mischaracterized your position, the remedy is simple: point to the specific statement, provide the exact quote showing what you actually said, and demonstrate the discrepancy. That’s how honest people correct the record. What you’ve done instead is make a sweeping accusation without identifying a single specific falsehood. That isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a deflection. And notably, it arrives at exactly the moment your arguments ran out of road. I’ll also point out that the word “slander” carries legal weight, and I’d encourage you to be precise about how you use it — particularly when your own words are on the public record, right here in this thread, for anyone to read.

Now, on your core philosophical challenge — that I’m making a moral inference from statistics rather than a moral argument — here is the moral argument, stripped of all statistics:

A contract entered into under structural coercion is not a valid contract. A child is structurally coerced by definition: they are legally, financially, and physically dependent on the adults proposing the arrangement, cannot exit it independently, and lack the lived experience to evaluate its lifelong consequences. This is true regardless of how the child feels about it in the moment, regardless of parental approval, and regardless of what their body is doing biologically. That is a moral argument about the nature of consent and the conditions required for it to be valid. It doesn’t require a single statistic.

You keep saying “18 is a made-up number.” But every threshold in law and biology is a threshold — that doesn’t make it arbitrary. Puberty ending is a biological event. Legal adulthood is the codified recognition of that event, with a buffer to account for variation. You haven’t proposed an alternative threshold. You’ve only argued that mine is invalid — without offering anything to replace it. That isn’t scrutiny. That’s obstruction.

You also said: “Law is the opinion of men. Morality is a higher form of justice that doesn’t rely on opinions.”

I agree completely. Which is why I find it remarkable that your entire moral framework in this conversation has rested on your personal memory of being 12, your feelings about your marriage, and your opinion that population growth is a moral duty. If morality doesn’t rely on opinions, you haven’t offered any morality here either — only autobiography.

Finally: I was a biology major, both from high school and Stony Brook University. I understand perfectly well why menstruation exists. The existence of a biological function (one that you neither possess, nor appear to understand) does not constitute moral permission to exploit it. The human body is also capable of being beaten, starved, and worked to exhaustion. The existence of those capacities doesn’t make them moral to enact. “The body can do it” has never been a sufficient moral standard — and you know that. But since you want to invoke biology, let’s follow it all the way through — not just the part that serves your argument. As I already stated: biologically, the onset of menstruation marks the b̲e̲g̲i̲n̲n̲i̲n̲g̲ of reproductive development, not the c̲o̲m̲p̲l̲e̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ of it. The pelvis continues to widen and develop well into late adolescence. Bone density is still forming. The body is still growing. A girl who becomes pregnant at 12 is not a woman whose body has “declared itself ready” — she is a child whose still-developing body is being placed under the physical demands of pregnancy and childbirth before it has finished constructing itself. The World Health Organization doesn’t classify pregnancy complications as a leading cause of death for girls aged 15–19 because of arbitrary cultural standards. They classify it that way because the biology you’re invoking as justification is itself the mechanism of the harm. You cannot selectively cite the beginning of a biological process while deliberately ignoring what that same biology tells us about the dangers of rushing it. That isn’t a biological argument. That’s a biological cherry-pick — and being well-studied on the topic, I won’t let it stand unchallenged.

Furthermore, as I already stated: the WHO reports that as of 2019, adolescents aged 15–19 in low- and middle-income countries experienced approximately 21 million pregnancies per year, roughly 50% of which were unintended. UNICEF confirms that approximately 650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday, and that girls who marry early “typically have limited autonomy to influence decision-making about delaying childbearing and contraceptive use.” These are not cultural opinions about appropriate age. These are the documented biological and medical consequences of exactly the framework you are defending. The body does not exist in a vacuum. Biology includes consequences — and the consequences here are catastrophic, measurable, and overwhelmingly borne by girls.

Rayn: You say the only objective thing I’ve provided is statistics, and that everything else has been opinion. Let’s test that claim. I provided the Cornell Law School Wex Legal Dictionary definition of a child. I provided the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I provided the WHO’s data on puberty timelines. I provided the ILO’s global estimates on forced marriage. I provided UNICEF’s figures on child brides. I provided legal analysis from Unchained at Last and Girls Not Brides on the structural barriers minors face within marriage contracts. I provided the three pillars of consent — full, free and informed — as a defined philosophical and legal framework. These are not interpretations. These are definitions, legal standards, biological benchmarks, and institutional findings from some of the most rigorously sourced bodies on the planet. The only thing that has been pure opinion in this thread — unaccompanied by a single external source — is your position. You have cited your own childhood, your own marriage, and your own feelings about population growth. That is the sum total of your evidence. So when you say you “only hear opinion,” what you’re actually describing is the sound of your own voice echoing back at you.

And since we’re on the subject of misrepresentation, let me briefly document who has actually been misrepresenting whom in this thread. You claimed my position treats all young marriages as forced — it doesn’t. I cited ILO data showing that family approval is statistically one of the primary mechanisms of forced marriage, which is not the same thing. You claimed I was “denying free consent” to girls — I wasn’t. I was explaining why structural coercion invalidates the conditions necessary for free consent to exist. You claimed I used brain development as my metric — I never did. I used puberty completion, legal definitions, and the three pillars of consent. You claimed I was offering “only opinions” — immediately after I had cited the UN, WHO, ILO, UNICEF, Cornell Law, and multiple peer-reviewed institutions. You claimed my metrics are “destroying society” — without a single source to support that assertion. That is a substantial catalog of misrepresentations of my actual position — and yet, at no point did I call it lies. At no point did I call it slander. I corrected the record, cited my sources, and kept engaging in good faith, because that is what intellectual honesty in debate requires. You, by contrast, having been corrected repeatedly and having run out of legitimate argument, reached for “lies and slander” — the refuge of someone who has confused losing a debate with being wronged. That isn’t discourse. It isn’t debate. It isn’t intellectual engagement. It isn’t diplomatic. It is, frankly, the precise behavior you’ve been accusing me of — casting sweeping characterizations without the receipts to back them up. I have receipts. They’re called citations. You’ve seen them throughout this entire thread.

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” — Proverbs 18:21

Choose carefully which side of this you want to be remembered as having defended.

Thomas K.: Alex, First: Rayn did not slander you. She quoted you, verbatim, with attribution, in the same thread where you wrote it. If you believe that your own words misrepresent you, the problem is not Rayn.

You present yourself as someone who holds scripture above the traditions of men. So let’s examine the scriptural sources you’ve actually used here.

Your claim about Rebekah’s age comes from the Seder Olam Rabbah, a rabbinical chronological text. That is a tradition of men; specifically, the traditions of the Pharisaic rabbinical system you have publicly criticized in other contexts. The canonical Torah gives Rebekah’s age nowhere either.

Your claim that Mary was 12 when she conceived comes from the discrepant Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal text that is in discord with canon scripture. The canonical Gospels give Mary’s age nowhere. It is, by definition, a tradition of men. You built your opening argument, the one that started this entire debate, on a source you would reject if anyone else cited it and, especially, presented it as you did:

“I dont recall exactly which text it was, but there is a text that… in this narrative… This one is harder to validate since the math actually seems to place…. That obviously doesnt check out, but if the math is even remotely accurate….”

Your claim that Joseph spent 30 years in prison due to a false accusation is simply wrong by the scripture’s own internal timeline. Joseph was 17 years old when his brothers sold him into slavery. He was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh. That is 13 years total, including his time in Potiphar’s house before he was ever imprisoned. The number 30 appears nowhere in Joseph’s prison narrative. You misremembered your own key scriptural example by 17 years and built an evidentiary argument on it.

Your reading of Deuteronomy 22 (that a woman not crying out during assault is evidence of consent) is backwards. The text distinguishes between assault in a city, where her cries could have been heard and help summoned, versus assault in a field, where no one could hear her regardless of whether she cried out. The passage is about the impossibility of witnesses in an isolated location, and how a victimized woman has a duty to seek justice for herself as immediately as possible, even under the possibility of harsher or fatal violent punishment from the violator once she screams for help. It says nothing about crying out as a consent test. You constructed your entire framework for evaluating rape accusations on a passage you misread in the opposite direction of its plain meaning.

Your claim that “the main biblical way” to evaluate a rape accusation is to check whether she still has her hymen is wrong on two counts. First, multiple medical bodies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have formally established that hymen appearance cannot reliably indicate sexual history, as it varies enormously between individuals and is affected by normal physical development entirely unrelated to sexual contact. Second, that is not what Deuteronomy actually prescribes as its primary evidentiary standard for rape cases. You cited a medically discredited claim as both scriptural law and biological fact.

Your scriptural case rests on non-canonical apocryphal text, a non-canonical rabbinical chronology, a misremembered timeline, a backwards exegesis, and a medically false claim. By your own stated standard (no traditions of men, scripture-only, consistent metrics) your foundation does not exist.

Matthew 23:8 (TS2009):
But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi,’ for One is your Teacher, the Messiah, and you are all brothers.

Since the Messiah is to be our one and only Rabbi, let’s see what He has to say about children:

Matthew 18:1-7 (TS2009):
[1] At that time the taught ones came to יהושע, saying, “Who, then, is greatest in the reign of the heavens?”
[2] And יהושע called a little child to Him, set him in their midst,
[3] and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become as little children, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.
[4] “Whoever then humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the reign of the heavens.
[5] “And whoever receives one little child like this in My Name receives Me.
[6] “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.
[7] “Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! For it is necessary that stumbling-blocks come, but woe to that man by whom the stumbling-block comes!”

Our one and only Rabbi tells us to become more like a child. Your position regarding child marriages does the opposite; it makes a child more like an adult, and then places her into the hands of one.

YHWH’s Name is bound to His character as protector of the vulnerable. The Torah repeatedly identifies YHWH as the defender of the fatherless, the widow, the voiceless, and the innocent. To invoke His Name over a religious or covenantal framework that places a child in sexual bondage is to hollow out the meaning of His Name. It is a direct violation of the Word to attach the covenant Name of YHWH to a practice that exploits and harms the vulnerable.

The memory of having been a vulnerable people under the authority of the powerful Egyptian Empire is ritualistically remembered every 7th day to generate compassion for the vulnerable, including children. The girl placed into child marriage inhabits the same social position as the slave: under total authority of another, with no independent standing.

We open our mouths for those who cannot speak for themselves. Children cannot speak for themselves in this debate. We will keep speaking for them.

Thomas K.: Alex, Since you accused Rayn of misrepresenting you; let me show you three of your statements from this thread that no one had to misrepresent, because they speak with perfect clarity on their own.

“650 million girls and women alive today were married before their 18th birthday…. That sounds like a GREAT thing.”

Six hundred and fifty million girls – many married before age 15, many to men decades older, many unable to leave, many dying in childbirth, many permanently physically injured, many classified by the ILO as victims of forced marriage and by the UN as victims of slavery – and your response is that this “sounds like a great thing”. That is not a philosophical position. That is a disclosure.

You have argued that a girl’s first menstrual cycle signals her body is ready to bear children. Girls can begin menstruating as young as 8 or 9 years old. By your own stated logic, you have no principled objection to a 9 year old girl entering marriage and carrying a pregnancy to term. So let’s follow that logic into the body of an actual 9 year old girl. At 9 years old, the pelvis has not yet widened sufficiently to allow safe passage of a full-term infant. This is not opinion; it is basic obstetric anatomy. The uterus and cervix are underdeveloped. Bone density is still forming. My own sons at age 9 weighed approximately 70 pounds. Their mother gained more than 70 pounds carrying each of them. A 9 year old girl attempting to deliver a full-term infant through a child-sized pelvis is not a marriage. It is a medical catastrophe; which is precisely why obstetric fistula, a devastating internal tearing injury caused by a pelvis too narrow to deliver a baby, is epidemic in the exact regions of the world where child marriage is most common. The menstrual cycle marks the beginning of reproductive development, not the completion of it. A match being lit is not the same as a fire being ready.

“Condemnation of slavery only works if we assume that the slaves are mistreated.”

This is the complete ideological architecture of chattel slavery, stated plainly. It is also the argument used by every slaveholder in history who described themselves as a “kind master.” A contract entered into without full, free, and informed consent is not made valid by the disposition of the person holding the power. Kindness does not convert coercion into consent. It never has. No man can claim total possession of another image-bearer without usurping the place of YHWH.

“We NEED mothers. We don’t need female workers.”

This is the ideological core of your position, finally made explicit. It does not frame girls as human beings with sovereign futures. It frames them as reproductive infrastructure. A girl is not a role. She is a person made in the image of YHWH. Her value is not determined by her capacity to produce children and manage a household for a man. The value of girls and women is just as intrinsically high as the value of boys and men in the eyes of YHWH. The position you hold is Ba’alism: the reduction of women and girls to their biological utility within a system of male ownership, ego competition, and social status ambition.

Thomas K.: Alex, I have watched you in this thread counter documented evidence with recycled assertions, respond to verified scripture with a questionable apocrypha source and the interpretation of a rabbinical sage, and respond to a moral argument about consent with a claim that “650 million child brides sounds like a great thing”. I have watched you apologize for what happened to me as a child while zealously defending the framework that made it possible. You have demanded consistent metrics throughout this debate. Here, by name, are the logical fallacies your arguments have committed. This is not an attack. It is an audit.

1. Moving the Goalposts: You demanded an exact age criterion, received one, then dismissed it as arbitrary and demanded a moral justification instead, then dismissed that too. The standard required kept changing.

2. Special Pleading (first instance): You refuse to endorse a 12 year old boy marrying because he “cannot provide,” while holding a 12 year old girl to no equivalent standard of physical, emotional, nor mental readiness, as you said “[i]t could very well be that [her adult husband] needs to teach her how to manage the house and carry some of her load until she is ready”.

3. Appeal to Nature: You argued that a girl’s first period signals her body is ready for marriage and childbearing. Biological processes are not moral permissions. Cancer is also biological, but we don’t say “look, his body is showing us that it’s ready to die, so let’s go ahead and euthanize him”.

4. False Equivalence (first instance): You compared a fully developed adult man voluntarily approaching a venomous snake – a reversible personal risk affecting only himself – to a child entering a lifelong marriage and pregnancy. These are not equivalent situations by any measure.

5. Circular Reasoning: You argued “parents know best, therefore outsiders cannot comment” while ignoring that 73% of forced marriages are arranged by parents, the very evidence that dismantles the premise you were using as your conclusion. Good ideas don’t require force.

6. Appeal to Tradition: You cited ancient cultures marrying girls at 12 as evidence that objecting to it is merely a modern cultural preference. What was historically common has never been evidence of what is morally good. The Tanak condemns practices that were historically common among Israel’s neighbors and at times among Israel itself.

7. False Dichotomy: You presented only two options: either outsiders have no say in family marriage decisions or they are imposing tyranny. Law and social norms are the entire middle ground that you ignored.

8. Shifting Burden of Proof: You demanded that we provide moral authority and consistent metrics while offering your own childhood memory, your feelings about your marriage, questionable extra-biblical sources, poorly executed math, and your opinion on population growth; held yourself to no equivalent standard that you hold others to.

9. Whataboutism: You argued that adult men can hurt adult women too, as though the existence of harm in one context neutralizes or justifies harm in another. The pain and injury to a child under the same circumstances that would hurt a woman will be significantly worse to an individual who is already far more sensitive to pain than an adult.

10. Appeal to Ignorance: You argued that the absence of proven evil intent is evidence that a harmful arrangement is morally acceptable. It is not. It is the absence of proof of intent, which is not the same as the absence of harm.

11. Slippery Slope: Your “outsiders have no say” framework, applied consistently, would make it impossible to ever intervene in any family arrangement involving a child (including documented abuse) unless the intervener had direct inside knowledge of that specific family.

12. Genetic Fallacy: Your primary scriptural evidence came from the Protoevangelium of James and the Seder Olam Rabbah, the very category of “traditions of men” you dismiss when others cite them.

13. False Recall: You stated Joseph spent 30 years in prison. The canonical timeline places the total at 13 years, including time before his imprisonment. You built an argument on a scriptural example you misremembered by 17 years.

14. Exegetical Fallacy: You misread Deuteronomy 22 as a crying-out consent test when the text is about witness availability based on location and how a victimized woman has a duty to seek justice for herself as immediately as possible, then built your entire evidentiary standard for assault cases on that backwards reading.

15. False Authority: You cited the hymen as the primary biblical evidentiary standard for rape, a claim that is both medically discredited and not what Deuteronomy actually prescribes.

16. Selective Skepticism: You dismissed the Me Too movement as an unverified narrative platform for false accusations requiring rigorous proof to validate it while simultaneously accepting unstable apocryphal and rabbinical texts as sufficient scriptural evidence for child marriage. You applied evidentiary standards only to claims that challenged your position.

17. Special Pleading (second instance): You argued outsiders have no right to comment on individual family marriage decisions, while spending this entire thread commenting on the Me Too movement, feminist culture, parenting, child-bearing, child-rearing, biology, medical risks or lack thereof, human trafficking, and the dynamics of a marital/sexual/romantic relationship between an adult and child as well as whether or not consent can be given – as an outsider to all of them.

18. Self-Inflicted Reductio ad Absurdum: Your “first period equals ready” threshold, applied consistently, means some 9 year old girls are candidates for marriage and childbearing; girls whose pelvises cannot physically deliver a full-term infant, whose uteruses are underdeveloped, and whose bodies are still constructing themselves. You have never addressed this problem.

19. Inconsistent Application of the Evil Intent Standard: You said the person who raped me ought to be put to death. You have simultaneously argued that a man who consummates a marriage with a girl who has had her first period, which can occur at age 9, is acting morally if she and her parents agreed. You have never defined, on your own terms, what the difference between those two men is.

20. Appeal to Consequences: You argued that feminism caused the population decline, the suicide epidemic, and societal degeneration; therefore, your alternative framework is morally justified. Countries with the highest rates of child marriage consistently show the worst maternal mortality, highest infant mortality, and lowest long-term population health outcomes. If population is your genuine moral concern, the framework you are defending is counterproductive by the very data you appeal to.

21. Willful Ignorance: After Rayn presented a comprehensive, sourced, multi-part moral argument grounded in the nature of consent, structural coercion, and the conditions required for a valid contract, you responded by claiming no moral argument had been made. That is not a rebuttal. That is a refusal to acknowledge what is directly in front of you.

22. False Equivalence (second instance): You compared your employment relationship to child marriage, arguing that being subject to a boss’s authority is essentially the same as being someone’s property. An employee is a legal adult who signed a contract of their own volition and can resign at will. A child in a marriage cannot file for divorce, cannot obtain a protective order, and cannot sign a residential lease. The analogy collapses entirely on its own terms.

Alex B.: Ill reply one more time for courtesy, but I dont see the point in responding any further.

To you, my words may appear to be “recycled assertions,” but there is a very clear reason for them: you assert your positions are “moral”, but they are just your interpretation on what to do with statistics (which were actually misused quite a bit).

By your standard, you would condemn a husband thats lovingly married his wife that wanted him of being an evil rapist.

You would condemn a whole family of innocent people that just want the best for the children of being rapists and traffickers due to mere statistics.

That is what the whole argument boils down to.

You would go before our creator and call yourself justified for bearing falde witness against families due to your mere opinion on how statistics should be handled.

Statistics dont make morals. Morals are perfect judgements, not statistical judgements.

I dont know why Im wasting time on this, but you are your own god. You say “child brides” but you have no right to magically decide what is and isnt a child.

You say “historical cultures”, but at least Israel’s culture was founded on the preachings of Moses and Abraham, who knew what our creator’s opinion on the matter was.

Abraham had TWELVE children. You dont get 12 children by starting at 18-30. And they were all blessed.

Your magical definition of what a child or adult is doesnt cut it for making moral claims.

I did ask for an exact age criterion, but you gave no clear criteria that can be objectively justified. You just said “concession” based on statistics.

What is the definition of a child? What is the definition of an adult? I dont see any clear definition based on your criteria.

I have not made special pleading. Men and women have different roles in marriage. A man provides while a woman cares for the home and raises children.

This is why men usually married older than women – it was practical.

Im not saying that makes a moral judgement, but Eve was clearly made ad the “helper” to Adam, who had the role of running the garden. And when the curse was given, Eve would want authority over Adam but he would rule.

Even the prophets condemned (Isaiah 3) Israel for being ruled by women.

This is why the burden is higher on the man for maturity.

A woman can manage a home and have children at a younger age than a man practically can. But if the man can practically do his job, there is no need for condemnation

I do appeal to nature. Let’s say that biological processes are not moral permissions. If that is true, then you have no right to decide what constitutes a valid marriage based on biology.

Youve made your WHOLE argument based on risk assessment, with the primary metric being her biology – the risk.

If you want to disregard biology as a moral metric (and every part of a body’s intended design is for a specific purpose and it is stupid to compare an intended process with cancer, an unintended process), then your whole appeal to her biology not being ready is invalid and you have to disregard that whole point.

If you want to keep that point, you need to acknowledge that a functioning body doing what it is intended to do IS a moral argument.

Sex is for children, periods are for children, if the body has begun having periods it is telling you it is time to have a child.

Unless a disease causes it to happen at the wrong time, that is the intended purpose of said action.

I have compared a person approaching a venemous snake for whatever reason (to remove it, to analyze it etc) to a person with their own will and desired choosing to marry who they want to marry, where it is mutual.

And unless you can give an objective irrefutable metric for what a child is (which you havent), you have no basis to call anyone a child.

We need a clear definition, and why it morally applies, before we can make such arguments.

5. You’re just making up stuff – strawman, since Ive never supported forced marriages. Ive supported marriages desired by the husband, wife and family.

Citing 73% means nothing when the total percentage is less than 1. 73% of the less than 1% cases is a useless and disingenuous statistic.

Law and social norms dont replace morals. God wont care about your law and social norms on judgement day. He will care about HIS law, which you seem to show no regard for.

Since the default is innocent until proven guilty, it is the burden on you to justify moral claims. You havent done any of that. You have presented societal norms and opinions on statistics and then presented them as moral judgements.

That wont fly on judgement day. All the innocents that you would have punished will testify against you.

9. I havent promoted anyone hurting. Age is not the only factor for hurting, and it could very well be the will of the wife to have a child. What they do is none of your business unless she is calling injustice. Perhaps they CAN have sex without it hurting her too much, but you would also condemn them.

You would condemn the innocents AND the victims.

You have no sense of justice, given that you want to condemn both the innocents and the guilty without distinction.

Ill stop there.

This whole thing is ridiculous since you pass social judgement as God’s judgement.

You pretend that statistics make moral judgements without any distinction and then you give disingenuous statistics, pointing to a minority of cases to oppose the majority.

I dont feel a need to respond further, since every argument you make is inconsistent.

Thomas: Alex, What can I really say to that? You said it all when you said the following:

“Sex is for children, periods are for children”
“Perhaps they CAN have sex without it hurting her too much”

(During this debate, I was inspired to complete the third article in a series, “The War on Women, and the Inextricable Connection Between Pørnøgraphy, Child Sɛx Trafficking, Slavery and Jeffrey Epstein“, finally finishing the second half of the piece)