3 ms·

I think if we want to protect children, one of the biggest things we can do is to ban child marriage. Girls as young as 13 should not be getting married, especi

I think if we want to protect children, one of the biggest things we can do is to ban child marriage. Girls as young as 13 should not be getting married, especially since they are minors they can’t get divorced(!!!) it’s an ugly and disgusting practice and should be wiped off this country.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
[flagged]
snvzz 3y ago
Extend to adults while at it. Statistically, it destroys lives and makes people miserable. After it ends in divorce (which statistically is most of the time), there's all sorts of follow-up issues with splitting goods and the insanity that is alimony.
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  It could potentially be argued that the prevalence of divorce is what negatively affects the largest number of children. Non-fact-based opinion: Stable relationships create stable children, and stable children are less prone to predators.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    As long as those stable relationships are healthy, and world-adaptive. Too many abusers have stable marriages. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    I would argue against demonizing divorce. Living with a couple who hates each other or where one is domestically abusing the other is a horrible state for children. Marriages aren’t stable inherently.
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      My point was more that "protecting children", as a goal, is a very complex issue and abuse has it's starting points very early in the abused's life and also likely the abusers life. I think it would be much better, and more of a longer term solution, to spend money on resources to tackle root cause abuse issues than poorly thought out privacy invading legislation that affects literally everyone. My divorce example was to point out the potential for equally silly, poorly thought out legislation because divorce has a negative effect on children. I think more money spent on boots-on-the-ground child protection services and education campaigns for children themselves, to provide them the knowledge and awareness to protect themselves from online predators, would be a longer term, better targeted legislation. But of course the above is only a better option if you're actually wanting to give children a better chance at avoiding abuse. Edited to add: I just had the thought that approaching any problem from a law enforcement angle is treating the symptoms and not the cause. It almost ensures an on-going stream of work because it just doesn't address the fundamental problem. A law enforcement approach doesn't protect children, it punishes offenders. It doesn't make vulnerable children any less vulnerable. A law enforcement approach is harvesting pus instead of attempting to treat the infection.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > Statistically, it destroys lives and makes people miserable. Er, what statistics are you basing that on? That sounds like an old stereotype, because every study I've seen on it says that marriage is great for mental and physical health. > it ends in divorce (which statistically is most of the time), More defensible, but depends how you read the data; if you ignore serial divorcees the rate drops a lot (i.e. if I'm reading this right, half of people who get married never divorce, but the other half get divorced and then keep remarrying and divorcing, which rather skews the numbers if you just count by marriage).

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

[flagged]

snvzz 3y ago

Extend to adults while at it. Statistically, it destroys lives and makes people miserable. After it ends in divorce (which statistically is most of the time), there's all sorts of follow-up issues with splitting goods and the insanity that is alimony.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago
It could potentially be argued that the prevalence of divorce is what negatively affects the largest number of children. Non-fact-based opinion: Stable relationships create stable children, and stable children are less prone to predators.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  As long as those stable relationships are healthy, and world-adaptive. Too many abusers have stable marriages. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turpin_case
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  I would argue against demonizing divorce. Living with a couple who hates each other or where one is domestically abusing the other is a horrible state for children. Marriages aren’t stable inherently.
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    My point was more that "protecting children", as a goal, is a very complex issue and abuse has it's starting points very early in the abused's life and also likely the abusers life. I think it would be much better, and more of a longer term solution, to spend money on resources to tackle root cause abuse issues than poorly thought out privacy invading legislation that affects literally everyone. My divorce example was to point out the potential for equally silly, poorly thought out legislation because divorce has a negative effect on children. I think more money spent on boots-on-the-ground child protection services and education campaigns for children themselves, to provide them the knowledge and awareness to protect themselves from online predators, would be a longer term, better targeted legislation. But of course the above is only a better option if you're actually wanting to give children a better chance at avoiding abuse. Edited to add: I just had the thought that approaching any problem from a law enforcement angle is treating the symptoms and not the cause. It almost ensures an on-going stream of work because it just doesn't address the fundamental problem. A law enforcement approach doesn't protect children, it punishes offenders. It doesn't make vulnerable children any less vulnerable. A law enforcement approach is harvesting pus instead of attempting to treat the infection.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> Statistically, it destroys lives and makes people miserable. Er, what statistics are you basing that on? That sounds like an old stereotype, because every study I've seen on it says that marriage is great for mental and physical health. > it ends in divorce (which statistically is most of the time), More defensible, but depends how you read the data; if you ignore serial divorcees the rate drops a lot (i.e. if I'm reading this right, half of people who get married never divorce, but the other half get divorced and then keep remarrying and divorcing, which rather skews the numbers if you just count by marriage).