A. Introduction
Oh, wow! Here we go again with intellectually bankrupt propaganda from yet another group of femi-Nazis looking to make a name for themselves on YouTube and on the Internet. The Internet, especially YouTube, is inundated with self-appointed pedo-experts, for a lack of a better term, who believe that they can simply wave their imaginary magic wand at anyone and change them into a pedophile or a child molester in the form of a false and baseless accusation against that individual, in figurative language. If you’ve ever come across any of these self-appointed pedo-experts on the Internet or anywhere, then you know what they are like. They believe to speak the gospel truth insofar as only they claim to know the objective moral facts concerning juvenile-justice-related issues like the one herein. I found myself on a YouTube page of two women who fitted that description quite accurately. Their entire comments section was like one big echo chamber where everyone who agreed with them could praise one another on furthering their busybody agenda. I had the right mind to post a comment to these two femi-Nazis and give them a piece of my mind. However, I soon realized that I was in the lion’s den or more like in a cesspool of know-it-all cockroaches and the cockroaches would have come crawling directly at me once I stated anything that proved them wrong.
California State Senator Jerry Hill recently introduced a bill to his state legislature in Sacramento seeking to pass a law that would eliminate all exceptions for anyone to get married before the age of 18 in the Golden State. I may not be a big fan of Planned Parenthood or the American Civil Liberties Union, but for once these people actually did something constructive and blocked this bill from ever becoming a law in the state of California. Two femi-Nazis fretted and stewed about it in their YouTube video titled “California Has Legal Child Marriage – Efforts to Bar It Meet Insane Opposition.” The quality of their video was atrocious, and the audio in their video was constantly going awry. Nonetheless, I will go ahead and allow for my readers to take a look at this same video, and then I will comment about it herein.
Femi-Nazi Propaganda Against Underage Marriage Is Never Ending
I almost got a headache watching the above video. However, I just had to respond to it inasmuch as most of these two women’s points, if not all of them, were way off-base. They call themselves the “Resistance Chicks.” Oh, brother! For the purposes of my avoiding being redundant, I will make frequent reference herein to my two previous articles here on Hive Blog.
B. The Misuse Of The Pedophile Card Does Not Help The Anti-Child Marriage Agenda
The misuse of the famous pedophile card in their YouTube video did not help these femi-Nazis in furthering their anti-child marriage agenda, but rather it merely confused their audience to the point that it compromised the credibility of everyone involved in the movements against underage marriage. Of course, in essence, that is a good thing inasmuch as it will do more harm than good to their efforts to get laws passed against underage marriage throughout the United States of America. Throughout their video, the Resistance Chicks made it known that they had a poor command of the facts behind the topic of underage marriage inasmuch as they used clichés as well as data that I have either challenged or debunked in my two previous articles titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage” and “Underage Marriage Is Not A Loophole.” They repeatedly complained about what they viewed to be the wrongs of adolescent girls wedding men in their forties, fifties, sixties, and seventies. Geez! They covered over four decades of different ages of men as though they were all bunched together into one generation. How intellectual of them! And I have wings to fly. Do they honestly believe that a 41-year-old man deals with the same life issues as a 79-year-old man? Such a tactic of theirs of using this wide age range is biased on their part and only shows how clueless they really are about this topic. They even went so far as to accuse these men of being pedophiles and their marriages to these girls as being legalized forms of rape. Hmmm. That mind tactic sounds familiar. As in one that a misandrist named Andrea Dworkin used so many years ago to denounce the entire institution of marriage.
Well, I completely get it. The Resistance Chicks are definitely not fans of actor Doug Hutchison, to say the least. However, anyone who has reviewed the real definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (“DSM-5”) will realize that these two femi-Nazis did not do their homework on this topic. Speaking of Doug Hutchison, these two femi-Nazis’ so-called school of thought resembles the kind of ignorance that Billy Bush spewed at both Mr. Hutchison and his then-wife Courtney Stodden back when they made an appearance on Access Hollywood Live to defend their relationship despite their age difference and the age factor surrounding it. As you may have already read about in my previous article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage,” Doug Hutchison was 51 years old and Courtney Stodden was 16 years old when they got married so many years ago. Well, in his interview with him on Access Hollywood Live, Billy Bush had the audacity to go accusing Mr. Hutchison of being a pedophile for marrying a 16-year-old girl, when Mr. Bush was educated enough to know that a pedophile is someone over 16 years old who is sexually attracted to a prepubescent child, which Courtney Stodden was far from being by the time that she was 16 years old. Below is a YouTube video showing that interview.
Overall, Mr. Bush was rude to Mr. Hutchison, and he wasn’t much more polite to Ms. Stodden either. In fact, he even angered her during the interview, which he had no right to do.
Some of you reading my article here might argue that Mr. Hutchison’s marriage to Ms. Stodden was never meant to be inasmuch as it did not last. However, I strongly believe that if their marriage had not been subjected to undue scrutiny and ongoing social pressures from all the hotheads in the public arena, they both would likely have remained married to each other indefinitely just as John Derek and Bo Derek did. After they were divorced, Ms. Stodden admitted on another television show that Mr. Hutchison continued to be a loyal friend to her who supported her in everything. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that Mr. Hutchison and Ms. Stodden ever fell out of love with each other once they divorced. I can also confidently say that I would prefer to have Mr. Hutchison as my next-door neighbor rather than Levi Johnston, whose transgressions I described in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage.”
In their YouTube video, one of the Resistance Chicks stated that she knew women who had married their 21-year-old boyfriends at the age of 17, and those couples had been happily married for four decades. Then she went on to say that she knew of no woman who got married before 17 years old to a man over 30 years of age and had that same story to tell about her life. Hey! Just because the Resistance Chicks don’t know anyone who fits that description doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. As a matter of fact, I gave plenty of examples in that regard in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage.” One of them was my cousin’s wife.
In their YouTube video, these two Resistance Chicks, so to speak, bickered about 368 people in their forties having married minors over a period of time. They were not clear about the time bracket within which these marriages took place. However, they kept on revisiting this gripe of theirs about teenagers marrying forty-something-year-olds and how it constituted both legalized statutory rape and pedophilia. Herein I take this opportunity to nip these invalid arguments of theirs in the bud. First of all, these marriages are not legalized statutory rape. “Statutory rape” is a sex crime only in accordance with a statute that defines it as one. However, it is not an actual act of sexual brutality by one human being against another human being, as these two “Resistance Chicks” attempted to mislead their audience to believe. These same facts that I have presented herein also contradict the Resistance Chicks’ assertion that allowing for a 16- or 17-year-old girl to marry a 24-year-old man was condoning a rape in the form of a “statutory rape.” No, it isn’t, because the marriage itself legally disposes of the statutory rape question altogether so long as a couple does not have sexual intercourse until the night of their honeymoon, and in some state jurisdictions prior to the night of their honeymoon.
Despite what the Resistance Chicks may believe, the age-of-consent laws were first instituted in the state of California to put a stop to child prostitution rather than to demonize and criminalize all adult-adolescent marriages. The marriage exception has always been an essential ingredient to the age-of-consent laws in California just as the intimacy discount is now, and both the marriage exception and the intimacy discount were incorporated in the age-of-consent laws of California to ensure that these laws were enforced fairly rather than oppressively. You can find a full explanation of the intimacy discount of the California age-of-consent laws in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage.”
The Resistance Chicks argued that “you don’t condone statutory rape.” Their argument is well taken. However, if a couple is married, then no statutory rape has taken place despite that both parties to the couple may be on opposite sides of the legal age line at the time of their wedding. Moreover, the age-of-consent laws in our nation are faulty compared with those of other nations throughout the world. Our country has some of the highest ages of consent in the world. State jurisdictions throughout our nation where the ages of consent are 18 years old lack safeguards in their criminal statutes to prevent frivolous and malicious carnal knowledge cases involving adolescents from getting needlessly onto criminal court dockets. As I pointed out in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage,” Argentina decided to play it safe with their age of consent of 18 years old by incorporating provisions in their age-of-consent laws that also required prosecutors to prove that any alleged victim of “statutory rape” between 13 and 17 years old suffered either exploitation or corruption or both at the hands of their alleged victimizer. At the same time, the strict liability factor is not compromised inasmuch as the decision on whether to press charges lies with the prosecutor himself or herself rather than with the alleged victim. Too many state jurisdictions throughout our nation choose to treat the crime of “statutory rape” as one cold mathematical equation in which only the age of the alleged perpetrator and the age of the alleged victim are taken into consideration rather than also the circumstances surrounding the situation itself. In a nutshell, the age-of-consent laws throughout our nation are in dire need of serious reforms.
The Resistance Chicks harped throughout their entire YouTube video that they believed that it was mostly adult men who abused young girls. However, not even one time throughout their entire video did either one of them bring up the subject of deadbeat teenage fathers, which is the biggest threat to adolescent girls who are between 12 and 17 years old in our nation. My previous article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage” and my other previous article titled “Underage Marriage Is Not A Loophole” are both full of very strong, salient points and examples of deadbeat teenage fathers who have left adolescent girls much worse off than any teenage girl who has ever married an adult man. Both of these femi-Nazis continued to highlight their so-called examples of middle-aged men marrying girls barely in middle school. Well, I want them to chew on this piece of information here.
In my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage,” I described an interview that Karen Tolkkinen had with a 34-year-old Alabama woman back in 2003 for an article regarding underage marriage in the Mobile Register. This same 34-year-old Alabama woman was married to a 63-year-old man, and she had been so for 20 years, which placed her at 14 years old and her husband at 43 years old back in 1983 when they first got married. According to this Alabama woman, her husband was monogamous and faithful to her. She stated that he was a good husband to her and a good father to their four kids. In other words, he showed absolutely no characteristics of a pedophile, which he wouldn’t be anyhow, or a sexual predator. He was obviously not someone who would have gone hanging out with weirdos like Jack McClellan or Phillip Greaves, and he definitely would never have marched side by side with them in a pedophile pride parade in the streets of New York City, if there were such a thing. The only complaint that this 34-year-old Alabama woman had about her marriage and her husband was that she resented how others treated her and her family disparately and even meddled into their personal business.
The Resistance Chicks’ twisted logic implies that Dr. Ben Carson is a RAPE BABY. However, anyone who followed his presidential campaign from 2015 to 2016 knows that such an implication of theirs could not be any further from the truth. During that time period, Dr. Carson revealed the fact that when his parents got married, his mother was 13 years old and his father was 28 years old. He also stressed repeatedly that his parents were very much in love with each other when they did tie the knot. Now, I know what some of you are probably thinking. Sure, Dr. Carson’s parents’ marriage was not the most conventional one, and it did not last for all eternity. The Resistance Chicks may even fire back at me and argue that no non-Platonic feelings between an adult man and an adolescent girl can ever be beyond question as for their authenticity. However, I seriously doubt that Dr. Carson or his brother view themselves to be rape babies despite the age difference between their parents at the outset of their marriage and the age factor that surrounded it. I can confidently deduce that if Dr. Carson had been elected president of our nation back in 2016, he would not have granted presidential pardons to notorious child molesters like Jesse Timmendequas and Joseph E. Duncan III. Moreover, despite that his father was far from perfect, Dr. Carson would likely never want anyone equating his father to notorious child molesters like Jesse Timmendequas and Joseph Duncan III or even as so much making any kind of comparison in that respect.
C. The Resistance Chicks’ So-Called Points, Statistics And Arguments Are Faulty At Best
From the beginning of their YouTube video, the Resistance Chicks ranted on about how they felt that if you were not old enough to vote, rent an apartment and so forth, then you were not old enough to get married. I challenged that argument of theirs in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage.” Well, allow me to give them some food for thought. In California, a minor can seek legal emancipation when they are as young as 14 years old. At one point in time, the California state legislature was even considering the notion of lowering the voting age to 14 years old for their state elections. The reason behind both of these facts is that many adolescents as young as 14 years old are earning more money in the entertainment industry than even some of the most skilled and professional business executives who are significantly older than them in California. The criminal justice system throughout our nation wants to go on trying adolescents as young as 12 years old as adults for certain crimes, but femi-Nazis like the Resistance Chicks don’t want to acknowledge that adolescents who are mature enough to get married do exist and that they don’t necessarily have to wed someone their own age or close in age to them for their marriages to be a success in the long run.
It’s interesting how the Resistance Chicks ran their mouths endlessly about state jurisdictions needing to observe the age-of-consent laws religiously and how they could not see adolescents who married outside their age circles as being anything other than victims. However, neither of them mentioned how unjust it was for alleged “victims” in “statutory rape” court cases to be charged with contempt of court and even jailed for it if they refused to testify against their older significant other if that older significant other happened to be on trial for having unlawful consensual relations with them. When state jurisdictions continue to allow prosecutors to turn alleged victims into criminals simply for refusing to cooperate with them, our country cannot deny that we are allowing ourselves to fall prey to double thinking in our criminal justice system. I described such a scenario involving a 15-year-old Connecticut girl in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage.” Furthermore, state legislatures and governors across our nation do have the ability to pass laws that legally immunize minors against being charged with perjury for lying under oath during testimony in sex cases. How do I know this for a fact? When I was living in California back in the 1990s, there was a television program on at night during the weekend named Night Talk With Dr. David Viscott in which residents of Los Angeles and the surrounding areas could call in and ask Dr. Viscott for advice. One night when I was watching this television program, someone who phoned in to Dr. Viscott revealed that a minor could not be charged with perjury in a sexual abuse case in California if that minor committed perjury under oath on the witness stand or at any time during testimony.
In their YouTube video, the Resistance Chicks presented the trite and overused argument in support of their assertion that youngsters’ brains were not fully developed until their mid-twenties. I wish that I had a dollar for every time that I’ve heard this same lame argument. Then I’d be the richest man in the world. I countered that argument in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage” by presenting the fact that such an argument only served the purpose of setting the age at 25 years old for someone to be elected as a delegate to the United States House of Representatives. However, life begins well before 25 or 26 years of age.
In their YouTube video, the Resistance Chicks relied upon faulty statistics that claimed that 167,000 minors got married between 2000 and 2010. In my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage,” I challenged those faulty statistics by pointing out the fact that there were fewer legal safeguards in place pertaining to minors in the marriage laws during most of that decade than there are now. Therefore, the statistics themselves were misleading. The so-called examples that they gave throughout their YouTube video of 10-year-old and 11-year-old youngsters getting married in state jurisdictions within our nation were fabrications at best. As I pointed out in my article titled “The Great American Controversy Over Underage Marriage,” the English Common Law forbids any state jurisdiction without a statutory minimum marriageable age for minors from allowing girls to wed before the age of 12 and boys to wed before the age of 14. Therefore, the Resistance Chicks’ so-called findings could not have been any more flawed than they were. Moreover, the people who gathered these so-called statistics and so-called findings cannot be trusted as you will soon realize after you read the online article titled “Jill Holtzman Vogel Is Wrong For Virginia” by Jason B Truth. Therein both Jeanne Smoot of the Tahirih Justice Center and Virginia State Senator Jill Holtzman Vogel are both exposed as having provided inaccurate and possibly even mendacious information regarding whether any 12-year-old youngsters had gotten married in the Commonwealth of Virginia during a specific time period.
I also have to question where the Resistance Chicks got their so-called information regarding a 74-year-old man who allegedly married a 14-year-old girl in Alabama. The minimum marriageable age for minors has been 16 years old in Alabama since 2003.
The dumbest and most ignorant argument that the Resistance Chicks presented in their YouTube video was that if an adolescent girl below the statutory age of consent were to become pregnant and her boyfriend were legally old enough to be prosecuted for “statutory rape” for getting her pregnant in the state of Maryland, then the best course of action would be for that young man to serve his time in prison and then he and his girlfriend could decide whether to get married afterwards subsequent to her eighteenth birthday. Hearing this intellectually bankrupt statement from them is where I must remind my readers that femi-Nazis like these two women will never have to serve time in any men’s state correctional facility regardless of whether they are even railroaded for a crime that they didn’t commit, and, therefore, it is so easy for them to make these kinds of statements that completely disregard the safety of all parties involved in these situations, particularly that of the male parties. After hearing this idiotic statement of theirs, I would just love to get in their faces and say “Duhhhhh.” Their suggestion is a recipe for a young man being gang-raped in prison, a teenage mother going on welfare, and both parents of the baby becoming welfare-dependent after the father is released from prison inasmuch as his legal obligation to remain on the sex-offender registry either for a lengthy period of time or indefinitely will stifle his efforts to secure employment. As a result, our taxes go up. Therefore, I don’t see how these femi-Nazis’ suggestion would do anyone any good other than some pushy police officer and some predatory prosecutor.
Also, the state prisons in Maryland are not among the most desirable throughout our nation. Then again, in figurative words, I don’t know of any state prison in our country in which inmates who go into them for sexual offenses involving adolescent minors actually end up feeling like hotel guests. Those places are absolute hellholes.
A blatantly poor analogy that the Resistance Chicks made in their YouTube video was that if you stole from a candy store, you didn’t get to own the candy store. What does anything that they said in that analogy have anything to do with two people falling in love with each other who each might just happen to be on opposite sides of the legal age line and wish to find a pathway to make their relationship a legal reality in the form of marriage? These two women think with their behinds instead of their brains. They even lied in their YouTube video about being libertarians, because no self-respecting libertarian would want to give our criminal justice system and our government that much power to ruin the lives of individuals whose rights depend upon the status quo in the marriage laws of the state jurisdictions that have not entertained legislation to forbid minors from getting married.
D. My Conclusion To My Article
Don’t get me wrong. No 10-year-old girl should ever be forced into a marriage to a man old enough to be her grandfather if she doesn’t even love him in the first place and would not even be capable of loving him at all because of her tender age and her immaturity. I’m just as anti-pedophile as most of you are. However, the most that our nation can accomplish by ending underage marriage everywhere in our country is putting more teenage mothers on welfare and more young adult fathers behind bars. Such an action would cause our taxes to go up and would sink our nation further into debt. It would also take our nation many steps closer to becoming a Fascist totalitarian police state.
If two individuals who love each other just so happen to be on opposite sides of the legal age line and the older partner has honorable intentions for the younger partner, then they should have a pathway to legalize their relationship. If they want to get married before the younger partner’s eighteenth birthday, it is not the same thing as some online predator with a sexual addiction hooking up with a young schoolgirl on the Internet and asking her to e-mail him nude photographs of her or his sending her nude photographs of himself.
No matter how attractive the arguments and points that the Resistance Chicks brought up in their YouTube video may seem, most of them are specious at best. The fact that the statistics and so-called findings that they presented in their YouTube video were both flawed and faulty should provide you with the proof in the pudding that these two women and femi-Nazis like them are not to be taken at their word on this topic. They are furthering a nationwide scare regarding child marriage that is unfounded for the most part.
In conclusion, the California state legislature made the right decision to resist a ban on all underage marriage. The consequences that their state would suffer if such a ban were signed into law would far outweigh any benefits that it would bring to their people. If anything, the interference that California has received from activists who are attempting to end underage marriage everywhere in our nation would only give this state more reason to secede from the Union, although I am more in favor of their state remaining a part of our nation.
This article is copyright-protected.