Tuesday, May 27, 2008

"We do not know of brides younger than 16!" - FLDS Woman





BULL-to-the-SHIT!

This is Warren Jeffs.
The person he's french kissing was 12 (TWELVE!) when these pictures were taken AT HER WEDDING TO JEFFS!
I'd like to say I'm speechless, but you all know me far better than that. I have a lot to say, including some choice four letter words. But, really...don't the pictures say it all?
Listen up, polygamist, FLDS readers (and I know there are a few who read this blog):
Marrying a hundred women? Fine. Knock yourself out. I'll throw you a bitchen' bridal shower!
But, when that hundredth wife is a CHILD, then you are an accomplice to a felony. You are sanctifying rape! Twelve year old children are not allowed to give consent to sex. EVER! When your religion condones such a union, your religion is fucked up. If you're too blinded to see that, then you need therapy. If you can't fathom how this is wrong, then you don't deserve to be a parent. When you have children, there's an expectation by our society, and I'd argue by biology, that you will protect them. Looking at these pictures makes me sick. SERIOUSLY!! To think of my daughter, 13, being married off to some self-professed Messiah makes me nauseous. And, let's just say, it would NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER! I don't care if God came down and did back flips while juggling fiery bowling pins while singing "I'm God. Worship me!", I'd still tell that God to fuck off if he told me to allow my daughter to marry some old coot with a super-ego. If, as a mother, you find nothing wrong with these pictures, then you have been brainwashed and you're not a fit parent.
My heart breaks for this little girl. At twelve, she should be going to school and learning about the world so that she can make a choice about the woman she will become. She should be gabbing with friends on the school bus and giggling about boys who are cute - not 50 year old, saggy assed men! In my opinion, she's too young to date! Certainly, she's too young to have a geezer macking on her!! For all the bullshit talk of keeping your children innocent, you FLDS sure throw that shit under the bus when it's time for your twelve year old to marry a convicted sexual predator and child molester.

43 comments:

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Replace "we know of" with "we Deny"and it would be about right.

You think all of America would be in uproar

Stuntsmile said...

I can't agree with this:

"Marrying a hundred women? Fine. Knock yourself out. I'll throw you a bitchen' bridal shower!"

Wherever there's polygyny there's poverty. The U.S. will end up looking like Iran if everyone in the U.S. thinks like this.

yuyay said...

Really stuntsmile? Can you provide statistics for this? I'm not sure those in consensual (and legal) polygamist relationships in the Netherlands would agree with you.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Stuntsmile, I don't ask anyone reading my blog to agree with me one-hundred percent of the time. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I would've suspected that you might see that I was being a tad sarcastic. I don't seriously condone having 100 wives.

I also would like to see your statistics about non-religiously guided polygamy equating to poverty. Not even in the FLDS is that *really* true. The prophet of the FLDS keeps the women in forced poverty by making them turn in their welfare checks to a central point where it is then redistributed. Islam doesn't condone taking more than six (I believe) wives. And, generally, only those in a certain class are allowed to have that many if they have multiples at all. Plus, poverty is relative. Are those FLDS members at the YFZ ranch striking you as people who are impoverished?

amarullis said...

Does the little girl in the picture look pregnant to anyone except me?

I think polygamy should be decriminalized. When something is illegal, it done in hiding and bad things remain hidden as well. Think about the current(drugs) and past (alcohol) prohibitions.

Country Wife said...

To think of my daughter, 13, being married off to some self-professed Messiah makes me nauseous. And, let's just say, it would NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER!

I agree 100%!!! If some old geezer asked for my DD's hand in marriage(s) or put the moves on her, he'd find himself a eunich before he could say, "Ma'am, your dog's got my winky!"

Badger3k said...

amarullis - I looked at the picture and thought the same thing. It could be that way she was being held by the perv, but I am not sure of that. Teaching in a high school has given me some exposure to pregnant teens, and she kind of has the same look. But, the pictures are not the greatest, and they were scanned in, and I'm sure there has been some quality loss. Still, it wouldn't surprise me.

April said...

Thank you for being such an eloquent voice to what many of us are feeling.

Badger3k said...

Follow up to the polygamy - poverty bit. From what I understand in Islam, the number of wives you can have equates with social status and money, and if I remember some surveys (or whatever) done a few years back (pre-2000), most people "make do" with one wife - most cannot afford more (even writing that sarcastically doesn't sit well - thus the quotes). Somehow, except for cults like this, I don't see it happening here (if nothing else, imagine someone like Trump - he'd go broke if he got divorced from the wives he could afford - he's had enough trouble with them one at a time!)

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Does the little girl in the picture look pregnant to anyone except me?

She definitely does in the pictures where he's holding her. But, it's hard to say in the ones where she is standing. I would say, though (having had four kids and seven pregnancies...), it looks like a baby bump. In dresses that are supposed to be "modest" it would seem odd if the dress poofed up like that if she weren't pregnant.

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Thank you for being such an eloquent voice to what many of us are feeling.


Thanks. I don't know if rants with cussing can be truly "eloquent", but you're truly welcome. Thank you for sharing that you feel the same way. I think we, as Americans who value the right to be a child, should be ranting about this. I'm glad to do my part.

stuntsmile said...

It is true, without any doubt, that wherever there is polygyny there is poverty. The only exceptions to this occur in nations with vast amounts of oil. As to yuyay's statement, the Netherlands is a monogamous country. When I say polygyny, I mean polygyny is commonly accepted, I don't mean a small proportion of polygynists amongst an overwhelmingly Christian , monogamous nation.

As to the statements "Are those FLDS members at the YFZ ranch striking you as people who are impoverished?" Well, they're on welfare, aren't they? In other words, they're being subsidised by a monogamous (vast) majority. They'd definitely be in poverty if it weren't for the subsidy from the monogamous majorty.

Statistics on the impact of polgyny are rare - the issue simply isn't investigated. But if we consider Muslim societies, which are generally polgynous, name one that is wealthy that doesn't possess oil? Even in these nations, the wealth is amplified amongst a small minority. South-East Asian nations, like Indonesia, are well aware of this and have strict rules on polygyny.

The problem with polgygyny is that if you have a population in which men can marry more than one woman, then this massively increases competition amongst men and it also leads to men being unmarried. This is a destructive force in any society, because men who aren't looking like getting married begin to take bigger and bigger risks.

Societies with polgyny also tend to have arranged marriages - much like the FLDS members. Indeed look at the FLDS members. Kicking out young males so that older members can monopolise females. Arranged marriages. Imagine if the entire U.S. was like this? It would end up looking like the Middle East. Women wouldn't be able to work or dive (as is the case in Saudi Arabia, the richest Middle Eastern nation).

I think people who think that polygyny is simply another way of living really have no idea what they're talking about. People need to read cross-culturally, particularly about the Middle-East. It isn't simply another way of living, it's a complete alteration of every basic assumption of society.

paulh said...

One thing I find rather interesting about the whole FLDS set-up is how much their social organisation parallels that of a pride of African lions.

stuntsmile said...

Actually, I will leave some stats.

Have a look at http://www.econstats.com/weo/V015.htm
(You'll need to copy and cut into excel to use the data.)

This will give you the gdp per capita of every nation in the world.

Every nation in the top 50 is monogamous except polygynous nations with extensive oil and gas supplies. These are Qatar (14th); Kuwait (27th); UAE (28th); Brunei (36th); Bahrain (37th); Saudi Arabia (44th) and Oman (46th).

It should be noted that, on a per capita basis, Saudi Arabia is not very wealthy, with barely more than $US10,000 per person. This is roughly comparable to St Kitts and Trinidad and Tobago in the Carribean and Poland in Europe, which would generally be considered to be of moderate wealth.

The reason I write this is that while child rape is abhorrent, it is only the second worst aspect of fundamentalist Mormons - the worst aspect is polygygny.

Paul said...

[silentsanta, NZ]

stuntsmile: Correlation is not equivalent to causation.

I don't see any convincing mechanism for polygyny (or polyandry) causing poverty; nor do I understand why nations with 'oil' are to be pointedly excluded from analysis; nor do I understand why voluntary polygyny (eg among US citizens) is excluded from analysis in favour of examining more institutionalized polygyny (ie on a national level).

Paul said...

[silentsanta, NZ]

Full disclosure: I'm not married, nor religious, nor gay; but I have pretty strong opinions about where the state should stick its nose when it comes to matters between competent, consenting adults.

Chook said...

These polygamist pigs are sad... very sad... How the government can let them get away with it is beyond me. Then again, with religion you can get away with anything.

Poodles said...

Stuntsmile,
I would have to disagree. I have seen homes here in Utah that belong to polygamists who marry only adult women and several of those women are professionals. They do NOT live in poverty. And if the FLDS were forced to release their financial records you would find they are not impoverished either. They run MANY successful businesses here in Utah. They also believe they are entitled to keep their profits and "bleed the beast" which means they use government assistance as much as possible. The men at the top are wealthy, the women and children are poor.

stuntsmile said...

Paul.

No, correlation is not equivalent to causation. But correlation is certainly suggestive. To prove causation would take a several hundred page book that would take several years to write. How polygyny causes poverty is due to a lack of cooperation in the society. As soon as some men can be polygynous, then this means that some men never get married. It's not a question that they can't find anyone to marry. I mean, there isn't anyone. This group of men create serious problems in such a society because they begin to take larger risks in order to become married. A pool of older unmarried men unable to become married, young unmarried men, and already married men are all competing to get married. Increased risks leads to crime and corruption.

The reason why nations with oil are excluded is because if a nation has a large amount of oil they don't need to develop the other infrastructure to produce a complex economy (education, for instance). Oil is basically money on a tree. Such nations can be unstable, like Nigeria, and yet continue to produce large amounts of money without any extensive need for universities or schooling for the population. In other words, making money this way is an aberration compared to the extensive infrastructure required in nations in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.

The reason why polygyny amongst US citizens is not included is because this is amongst a tiny percentage of the population. In other words, the ill effects of polygyny are masked by the larger, cooperative, monogamous society.

If you're so sure that the state shouldn't stick its nose into the affairs of adults, why don't you leave New Zealand and live in Africa or parts of the Middle-East? Why do you think New Zealand is wealthy? Even if you live in a wealthy nation in the Middle-East, like Saudi Arabia, your wife/partner won't be able to drive a car (it's illegal for women to drive cars).

(Apologies, I do sound serious! But I am, I don't think people are taking the issue of polygyny seriously at all.)

stuntsmile said...

Poodles

You've simply proved my point. They 'bleed the beast'. So, what would happen if the beast couldn't be bled any more? They'd be poor. I don't understand how you don't understand this.

They have a few businesses, are massively subsidised by the state, and the men utilise most of the money for their own purposes. They may not look poor, but that's because their finances are massively inflated by the rest of society. Basically, your taxes are subsidising someone else's polygynous lifestyle. Without the subsidy, they'd be poor (by U.S. standards).

Spidergrackle said...

stuntsmile wrote:

Why do you think New Zealand is wealthy?

Lots of resources combined with a low population density. Exploitation of the aboriginal population. A highly educated population. Lots of reasons. That's an egregious correlation-causation argument you have going there.

Even if you live in a wealthy nation in the Middle-East, like Saudi Arabia, your wife/partner won't be able to drive a car (it's illegal for women to drive cars).

That's not specifically because of polygamy. That's the result of misogyny. Yes, you can make the argument that polygamy is inherently misogynistic: but polygamy does not necessarily mean draconian control of a woman's right to be educated, drive a car, etc.

Spidergrackle said...

As soon as some men can be polygynous, then this means that some men never get married. It's not a question that they can't find anyone to marry. I mean, there isn't anyone. This group of men create serious problems in such a society because they begin to take larger risks in order to become married. A pool of older unmarried men unable to become married, young unmarried men, and already married men are all competing to get married. Increased risks leads to crime and corruption.

A slippery slope argument if I've ever seen one.

The reason why polygyny (sic) amongst US citizens is not included is because this is amongst a tiny percentage of the population. In other words, the ill effects of polygyny are masked by the larger, cooperative, monogamous society.

Ya know, that sounds an awful lot like the argument that American atheists are only moral because of all of the Christians around, giving them a good example.

ZugTheMegasaurus said...

Those photos make me physically ill, really.

Katie said...

That does look like a baby bump to me in that image. (insert sounds of me being sick) I knew a lot of people when I was in high school who got pregnant under the age of 16. (It also helps to live in a city with a high teen pregnancy rate to know what a kid looks like with one. )

Milo Johnson said...

I am an unabashed sexual libertine - and that photograph turns my stomach. How is it that this "man" is not in jail somewhere and getting gang-sodomized hourly?

Anonymous said...

"When your religion condones such a union [marrying a 12-year-old], your religion is fucked up."

You'd have been pretty unhappy with England and the United States before the end of the Victorian era, when age-of-consent was bumped significantly upwards:

"The original age of consent, codified in English common law and later adopted by the American colonies, ranged from 10 to 12. In 1885, Britain and the states began raising the age to 16, ostensibly to protect girls' natural innocence."

http://www.slate.com/id/2174841/

Shar said...

Anonymous, I'm not sure what the point of that statement was, but while the AoC was horribly low, it has been raised. We've changed.

And if you actually look at trends in marriage ages, you'll find that they tend to hold at late teens, early twenties for women for a good portion of modern history. Just because the AoC was so low doesn't mean that that's when the girls got married, it just meant that girls that young in a lower class could be exploited with impunity.

Shar said...

Oh, and Stunt, yeah polygamy is allowed in said societies, but what is the actual rate of polygyny in those areas? Most accounts I've read of Middle Eastern life revolve around a man with only one wife, perhaps two in certain circumstances. We're not talking harem situations as the norm here.

You are also working on the bad assumption that because something is legal, it is the norm or always done.

The reasonings for the poverty are going to be a lot more complicated than "lolz polygamy." And the people with multiple wives aren't usually going to be the poor in the community. It generally functions as status, and that doesn't work if your wives are all starving.

There are problems of demographics in a society set up around polygyny, but they will either find a way around it, or maybe even allow multiple husbands. But, that's assuming that it becomes a norm that EVERYONE does, which just isn't usually the case in any place outside of FLDS compounds.

Cris said...

"How is it that this "man" is not in jail somewhere and getting gang-sodomized hourly?"

Thankfully he is in jail.

The girls doesn't seem to be pregnant in these other pictures http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds1.html (third page.

Quiltingcat said...

No, she's not pregnant. In the first sheet of pictures, she's standing in all of them and clearly doesn't have a bump. A crisp fabric such as cotton, especially if it is starched, would poof up like that.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081flds3.html

The Smoking Gun also has pictures of Jeffs kissing a second young girl with the caption that it is their first anniversary.

Any way you slice it, this is just sick.

reVAMPed said...

We are such cultured animials and what we find uncultured is so ugly.

reVAMPed said...

...and the girl isn't even up to his (Jeffs) shoulders...

It's not right.

Cogito said...

Thanks for those pictures, now I have something handy when I need an emetic.

Adam P said...

I just had a question/comment about this quote:

"Twelve year old children are not allowed to give consent to sex. EVER! "

Excuse me? Are YOU deciding whom or what "Twelve year old children" are allowed to do?

This is the first time I read your blog, so I do not know whee you are from, but as an example. In United States, you need to be 18 years old to have sex, Yes, SEX, one of the most natural things in the world, now, in contrast, most U.S states allow 17 year old kids DRIVE A CAR and have GUNS...... Ehm,,, somewhat of a contradiction?

SEX is natural, and that you judge this SPECIFICALLY regarding the sex issue means you are not objective. In ancient Greece paedophilia was perfectly fine AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW PROPER COURTING PROCEDURES (as having sex with anyone today would work, as long as you 'follow the procedures, conesnt etc).

It is the contemporary society that is claiming that younger adults are 'not allowed to have sex', AS WELL as claiming it is 'wrong' (without any basis for this).

200 years ago it was fine to enslave negros. 100 years ago it was perfectly understood that negros where inferior. 50 years ago negros where allowed to drink from the same fountain was WHITE PEOPLE (revolution), and today everyone is equal AS LONG as they agree with common consent (eh, yeah, or in the Christian world, Muslims are BAD Christian GOOD, right?)

And the list goes on. The main problem with this is not the sex, which im suprised you aimed at, it is the fact that they have a socety they indocrinate to believe in things that does not exist, as well as using this lack of knowledge, understanding etc to control the society and its weak people (like the americans being some of the most ignorant and gullible people on the planet which is related to poor education and understanding of the world, leading them to believe in this that do not exist such as Gods, UGO's and hate things they know nothing about such as Communism).


I agree with your disgust and hatred for these people. But I do not agree with the claim without basis regarding the sexual issues with children, which i do not consider to be of interest of the whole affair.

Not that you will agree.

Adam

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Adam P,

As a first post you could have been more polite and a bit clearer in what you were saying.

Hey maybe PM could have worded her statement a little better but she was ranting.

I understood her, when she said "Twelve year old children are not allowed to give consent to sex. EVER!", to mean that in the context of an adult child relationship that a child cannot give informed consent because of the large disparity in power and the lack of world experience/understanding of the child.

Now state you case more clearly please, instead of blurting out your thoughts and prejudging PM's response.

Adam P said...

Hi Sean, yes I apologize I should have been clearer AND minded my poor grammar. :)

First off, DEFINE 'child' and 'adult'. In U.S Society? European Society? 14th Century Society? There is a fair difference.


Now, basically, PM made the statement: "Twelve year old children are not allowed to give consent to sex. EVER!"

This is awfully hypocritical if you then look at the actual post. She is condemning FLDS for what she considers to be something bad (subjective), AND THEN make an absolute statement of 'what is right' (subjective opinion claimed as absolute truth). THIS, my friend, is bigotry of worse kind.


Now, however much I agree with the clear disgust of the people (FLDS in this case) of which PM is talking about, it does not make me IGNORE such a blatant contradictory comment SHE MADE.


Clear enough?


Adam

Atheist in a mini van. said...

Adam, your first post is dizzying. I'm not sure where to start dissecting it.

Sex between consenting individuals is fine. My statement was made on the basis that I don't think it's possible for a twelve year old to consent to sex. If that doesn't sit right with you, then that's your perogative. You don't have to agree with me.

It's interesting that you're trying to say that sex is natural and the taboo should be lifted off it and I completely agree with those two statements. But, sex between a fifty year old man and a twelve year old who didn't even know what sex was until her wedding night is the farthest thing from "natural". When these girls, and I've met some of the ones who've escaped and spoke with them at great length, were "given" to their husbands to be "USED as full wives", THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT SEX. Girls in the FLDS don't even know where babies come from. The births of children are not family affairs and it's considered against the precepts of the group to allow a girl to watch a woman birth. Warren Jeffs went so far as to say that it made a girl unpure to know the names for her body parts. Put yourself in the shoes of a twelve year old who has just beed wedded off to this jerk! Without fail, every woman I've spoke with who left this sect said they felt as if they were being raped...even though a few had never heard that word or knew what it meant. They were taught that it was perfectly acceptable, after the fact, for their husbands to do whatever they wished to their bodies because they were HIS. It's not about sex. It's about property, control, and power.

There's nothing subjective about that. That you would argue other wise concerns me greatly and I would like to request that you not post here anymore. You are arguing in favor of sex with children and I can't support that. Call me hypocritical (though I can't figure out how that applies). I don't care. Just don't come here and suggest that a girl who likely has never had a period is old enough to consent. History is history. When the lifespan was thirty years, I'm sure it may have been appropriate for a teenager year old to consent. We don't live in that era any more.

ozatheist said...

I don't have children, but I don't think you need to, to know this is sick and wrong.

It's not surprising that the age of consent (AoC) around the world is generally 14 - 16 or over. This is to protect children.

Interestingly, in quite a few places around the world the AoC is lower if both parties are young. For instance: the Austrian age of consent is basically 14, however, it is illegal to have sex with someone under 16 by "exploiting their lack of maturity".

PS. How come these FLDS people aren't being charged with polygamy, rape, paedophilia, having sex under the AoC, etc?

ozatheist said...

From what I can tell the AoC in USA is 16 (or higher), except in about half a dozen states where it is 14; but:
a lower age applies when the age gap between partners is small, or when the older partner is below a certain age (usually 18 or 21).

So Jeffs is WAY off the mark.

This data come from here

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

Adam P,

Yes thank you, very clear. Why you decided to jump in "all guns blazing" in the first place I don't know.

The only definition of child that matters in this discussion is the one that exists now. Yes our ancestors may have had sex with what we would consider children, but then we have moved on and developed from that point.

And as I pointed out Pm was not being absolutely clear, though the rest of us clearly understood what she meant. Maybe a bit more lurking and reading would have enabled you to make a more balanced judgment.

Should a twelve year old girl be allowed to consent to sex? Maybe if the other partner is of the same age, as part of sexual exploration. But Warren Jeffs looks a little older than twelve and that is the context of the situation.

And sure we can argue on a philosophical level, but this isn't some sort of thought game or what if, this is happening now in the real world. If you think that a twelve year old can consent to sex with an adult male then I don't think you would be too welcome on any forum

Enkidu said...

www.jesusandmo.net/2008/05/06/texas/

Logic Lad said...

I have been following this story for a little while. I find it hard to believe that a first world country can tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Polygamy is fine, all consenting adults together. I have friends in similar relationships and they all seem to be fairly well adjusted people.

Child abuse is a slightly different kettle of fish. Tolerance for another groups moral/legal beliefs has got to go so far and no further. I think a number of organistaions need to be reminded of a simple order of allegience

Humanity
Your country (ie the legal requirements to be a citizen)
Your personal beliefs

Hey folks, believe what you like, just don't think it gives you any free passes on the responsibilties of being a citizen. It is staggering that people believe that they should recieve the full protection of the law and yet only practise the bits they want to.

I think the problem is too many people manage to mix up Humanity with religion and hence can't see why what they are doing is wrong.

Still bottom line, kiddie fiddlers should be safely locked up where they can't hurt anyone else.

Just to chuck in my two cents about ther age of consent, there has to be a legal age to allow certain things, perhaps the legal age for sex should be younger, perhaps it should be older? i know people my age (30) who don't seem to have the maturity to deal with sexual relations. The point is that it is a law and no matter what you think you are still going to jail if you knowingly sleep with someone underage. Personally I think 16 is pretty reasonable to protect children being prayed on by older people. But then i am not a parent so my opinion may change when i have to actually deal with such things.

marcwhitaker said...

" . . . I have pretty strong opinions about where the state should stick its nose when it comes to matters between competent, consenting adults."

I have to agree. Consenting adults want to set up housekeeping with extra partners? I couldn't care less. When consent is absent or one of the parties is incompetent to give consent, then its rape, pure and simple.