I've been very busy lately and have not had a lot of time to comment other people's sites much.  For that I'm sorry.  I'll be back to normal soon. 

I wrote something called Wait for Me a while back and I guess this might be a sequel.  The inspiration is the same as before.  If you have not read it, I would suggest you do so first.

It concerns when God's love leaves, but again parallels the unconditional love of a man for a woman. 

 

There's nothing I would not do for you, my love, my fair one, no good thing ever denied you if only you would wait.  That was all, yet you so swiftly move to stir my jealous anger, for you have left your course to chase some far smaller, far dimmer wandering star, unworthy of a single thought of yours, as you only ever thought of yourself, and as I only ever thought of you.

You would discard all the best there is for some worthless momentary pleasure, returning to an ignoble past, the one to which I said never to return, that it can only end in your regret.  And ever though you no longer speak to me, yet will I wait for you with only ever as much patience as you need because I know you are worth the wait.

 

You will see your need for me soon enough, and when you do, I’ll be here with open arms.  No matter how often you nail me to this cross, I will forgive you, because I know that you know not what you do.  You may feel some guilt for these scars of love I bare.  Perhaps then you will see my worth.

I understand this post is lengthy compared to what’s normally read on a metablog.  I attempt to be thorough yet concise. I am simply a careful observer of people and their actions, though I guess that I wouldn’t expect you to believe me considering most of you don’t know me. I have spoken to all age groups of both genders on this topic and have observed consistent division of opinion between them.  I read extensively, as well and widely concerning more than that which pertains to my own era, century, ect., so I take nothing off the wall. 

I do not moralize.  Morality and moralization are very different things. Just because something is called immoral or perverse and is widely accepted as such does not entirely make it so.  Also give different definitions for the same word. 

Fundamentally I’m interested in cause and effect.  If something is classified immoral, I want to know why which is always revealed in the results short or long-term (the latter being most often overlooked since they extended the length of human life) from the choices made. 

The finish is the most essential but over the span of life it is the least observed.  Most individuals have little knowledge of history beyond their own lifespan anyway, little or no knowledge of culture beyond their own, and reject most things that contradict what they’ve been taught.  More often it is experienced as an emotional stigma, the individual quailing in the face of presented results, feeling threatened because of their strong emotional attachment without any other reasoning. 

Of this I am certain, most of you will find at least one element to disagree with, and though my mind is set and this is not an opinion-seeking post, feel free to express yourself, only allow discourse to remain civil.  This is a topic that stirs strong opinions.  I only request that you would listen to “the conclusion of the whole matter” first and that any anger you might experience, instead of ending the reading of this article because somehow it would be a personal threat to you, that it would spur your eyes on till the end and you would view it with a relatively open mind as views, not competing with anyone else’s but as being complete unto themselves.  Your views are not you, but are usually an opinion you have adopted based upon a socio-cultural preference of moralization.  It is not my goal to oppose you; it is only that the details given work as proven throughout recorded history, verses the complete failure of the twentieth century ideas pertaining to the subject.

Intimate Relationships between the sexes to begin in the home
The most beautiful expression of relationships I have ever found was that of 1st Century Judaic tradition.  Both sons and daughters received academic and ecclesiastic training from their mothers till the age of twelve, at which point the sons (and sometimes but not always daughters) would be taken to the temple where their knowledge of the Torah would be tested.  This was a rite of passage into adulthood.  The sons would then begin the vocation of their fathers, usually until the age of twenty.  Sometimes however it was younger, considering the males prosperity and skill and the prosperity of their father. 

Daughters were taught by their mother the necessary skills of cooking and housekeeping till their first menstruation, after which the father would look for them a suitable mate.  The average age of first menstruation was fourteen, but would sometimes be thirteen or fifteen depending upon the individual.

There were several reasons for this practice.  While the male’s responsibility was to make certain his family was taken care of fiscally (which usually meant he must have accrued a minimal reserve of wealth) as well as be physically capable of protecting his family from harm, the wife was to train their children and maintain cleanliness of her house.  As well, the older civilized cultures recognized that true physical adulthood began when the individual was capable of reproduction, whereas a socially and politically correct “magic number” defining instantaneous adulthood is a much more modern hypothetical idea.  The marriage of the daughter also had nothing to do with family resources.  These people were brought up from their youth how to effectively amass wealth in their culture.  In fact, in one of Paul’s many epistles he describes the necessity for women to marry young because some fathers were practicing what many do today, that is postponing the marriage of their daughters.  Jewish families were generally very large, so the siblings shared responsibilities which meant for a great deal of idle time.  As in many cultures, too much time leads to the creation of many unnecessary problems, one of which is gossip.  While the males are out employed in their trade, it would be unlikely that the females would take up crafts for their spare time without supervision, which would be no different for any male if they were not employed.

Now the process of marriage began this way:  The father invited a prospective male of his approval to dine at their house.  He might have been young, or a widower.  Neither mattered as long as the father felt comfortable that this man would please his daughter and take care of her.  After all, the common adage for a daughter was “the apple of my eye.”  Daughters were more often the favored in the household, regardless of the fact that the father first needed sons to advance his business.   (As well the Israelite male was highly favored amongst females of other nations.)

At which point the prospective male had a choice:  He could offer the daughter a cup of grape juice or he could choose not to, in which case there was no insult as the male was under no obligation to do so.

If he did, the daughter had three options.  She could choose to drink all, a symbol that the male was desirable in her eyes and she would marry him.  At this point they were betrothed and the male, after eating, would leave to build her a house as a wedding gift.  And the house was hers, not his.  Despite what some people like to believe, a Hebrew marriage was all about equality.

Her second choice would be to drink only half, which indicated one of two possibilities.  First, she did not feel emotionally ready or, second, she was not certain of the male in question.  In either case the male left and, if she was still unwed a year after, he would be invited to return to offer the grape juice again.

The third choice would be not to drink of it at all, in which case no insult would be extricated from the exchange.

Some might observe the accuracy of these details from the language of the Gospels.  Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane said: “Let this cup pass from me.” Also in John, he states, “I go to prepare a place for you . . .” with Christians being symbolized as Christ’s bride.

All of this may seem foreign to you and outrageous considering the nearest we approach this consisted of a Mormon scandal consisting of forced marriage.  It should be observed however that the daughter’s marriage was fundamentally the choice of both individuals concerning the possible union.

So how much does this differ from the today’s typical family?

Intimate relationships between the sexes outside of the home
At the age of five the children are sent off to a government run schools that hand them crossword puzzles and reads to them until their senior year.  Some of the girls begin menstruating at the age of eight or nine because farmers add estrogen to feed to increase the size of livestock.  Males also become more emotional.  At this age most become aware of and interested in the opposite sex.

I must pause here to note that this last part disturbs me and I know most of you will agree.  I’m not in any way advocating marriage at the age of eight or nine because human beings were never designed to be capable of reproduction so early. This perversion of biology is the result of greed.  With that in mind, most teachers will not advocate abstinence. They would hand out condoms before they ever considered handing out a marriage license.  Meanwhile, parents out of selfishness to keep their children as long as they can, will not allow their children to marry till they are eighteen or older, despite the fact that the only things that happen then universally are that they graduate and are deemed old enough to smoke and vote.  This age marks no biological conclusion in development of any kind for most individuals. By this time they have become desensitized to sex except their desire for it, which most likely is never extinguished, and if they are incapable of it. 

A complement from a male might result in a negative reaction from the female. 

If the female fears her boyfriend will leave her, or that he is too bashful, she may practice some sexuality to “keep him” or “loosen him up,” whether it’s of an oral or copulative nature.  This usually produces the opposite effect.  More than likely the male will have experienced sex before in which case he’ll realize he can achieve a comparative experience from someone else, so his libido is not threatened.  If not, he becomes more insecure, more fearful that he will lose her.  More often he becomes demanding and inhibiting.  The female suddenly is forced to abandon all of her friends.  Any males that might have been like brothers to her can no longer text or hang out with her and she will comply so as not to jeopardize the relationship and so will jeopardize herself instead.  If her friends tell her to break it off, that it isn’t good for her, she’ll persist in spite of them.  It never ends well.

And it does happen in the opposite manner.  One of my friends married an aggressive, emotionally dysfunctional female, despite the fact that everyone--myself included--told him what would happen.  It did and the marriage did not last two months.  The union produced a child.  Think of how he will be raised.

Even when the relationship is not physically violent, it is emotionally violent.  Meanwhile society dictates we marry later and later as the divorce rate climbs, not just because of the psychological effects of sex before marriage, but also because it’s more difficult for most people to adapt to situations as they grow older.  And case study after case study demonstrate that individuals who are sexually active before marriage are more likely to divorce than those who are not.  It isn't a case of moralizing, but it is a case of morality.

The solution
My mother works with someone who was married when she was fourteen.  She’s now in her mid-forties and still happily married.  This is not the only example I know.  I’ve known or spoken to about a dozen couples who were married between the age of fourteen and sixteen.  With some there was close to a decade between them. 

Most of these couples are in their seventies or eighties now, though a couple are in their early to middle forties.  In fact every (without exception) octogenarian I have ever spoken to on the subject would advise anyone to marry young.  Why?  In their words, it’s easier to adapt to another individual.  It’s nothing to do with being “mature enough;” no one ever really is in the beginning.  Often it takes a year, sometimes two to reach that point, but it only ever happens through marriage.

Instead society does not listen to experience. They’ll tell any sixteen or seventeen-year-old who will listen that they’re “too young” for marriage, that they should go out and “live it up,” have some fun while they can.  Society continues to listen to its divorce lawyers who recommend the same, if only to increase their profits.  Society derogatorily calls these sexually active young adults ‘minors’ and the government only ever recognizes a fourteen-year-old female as a woman unless she’s had a child, or a sexually transmitted disease.  These men and women know, at least subconsciously, that they are men and women, which leads to “teen rebellion” because they are being emotionally abused with the system that has been put in place to raise them, and when they’re forty and fifty years old, they are the individuals who scream and curse at their children at the local supermarket.  Now those in their twenties are called tweens.  It seems this is supposed to help prepare us for the universal health care system which is even now being developed as there has been talk that the age of adulthood will be increased to thirty, all in an attempt to make more individuals more dependent and limit maturity, while increasing divorce rates. 

These many psychological results laid out earlier prove that, while sexual desire is obviously a natural sensation, premarital sex is not a natural or healthy experience, yet it has been deemed entirely natural by our society and the majority of parents have fallen for it.  When an eighteen-year-old man falls for a sixteen-year-old woman--as it is natural for a younger woman to fall for the older man, as well as the older man falling for the younger woman--it is suddenly rape (or force) despite that obvious fact that both of them consented to do what society has deemed natural.  I’ve seen this many times myself.  The girl between fifteen and seventeen tells the eighteen to twenty-year-old that she is eighteen, they have sex and the legal system labels the ignorant male a sexual deviant as if he were fifty and fondled eight-years-olds.  It would not surprise me in the least if this made up two-thirds of the sexual “predator” cases.  And don’t be fooled, no form of sexual practice or even sensuality has to occur to be labeled a sexual predator, and it requires no intention.  The government makes it entirely possible for a male older than eighteen to be convicted of third degree sexual assault if he accidentally bumps a female younger than eighteen in a crowd, just as the government gives themselves the option to take away your own flesh and blood if you, let’s say, forbid your daughter from attending prom because she was caught naked with her boyfriend, all of it without any requirement of proof.  (The wary are skeptical of their rulers’ devices.)

Conclusion:  Your choice
I’ve never debated this topic without bringing up all of these elements and a few more which relate to the true intention behind these laws, and though I’ve easily defeated every single person so far in debate on this topic, I’ve yet to turn many minds.  I challenge them, that it is only for their emotional attachment and while they are quick to deny it, the words they use to describe their stance are universally, “I feel.”

But this is not an “I feel” issue.  Emotion and intuition are not the same, either. Results are what matters. Is it wise to choose the least effective method, the method that most likely will end poorly, because society prefers it?  Society itself isn’t for you, it’s against you. There is no respect in society.  There are stories.  There is entertainment.  It sells, whether it’s sex, hatred, making the good evil and the evil good, yet society lacks respect for the individual, for success, and a relationship is all about respect, for yourself and your spouse.  Without respect, your relationship does not work.  It might hang together by a strand of hair, but it won’t be loving.  Without that respect, your children will love and respect you less as well.

You see the goal is not to raise children, but to raise adults and somewhere along the line parents have lost sight of this in an attempt to give their children “a better life” by giving them “everything I never had,” as if this could somehow be better for them.  They’re babied, coddled, spoiled, whatever term you prefer best, none of them teaches them respect.

I’ve observed the results of this line of thinking and, when it succeeds, it is only an inferior form of what could have been. 

Before the Great Depression it was not unreasonable to find a job at twelve, and to be capable of supporting a family at fourteen.  Not very long ago, it would not have been difficult to still find at the very least a part-time job at fourteen.  Now it's difficult enough to find a job before you're eighteen and it would be the same if the government wasn't spending itself into an economic meltdown.  We're an entire generation teaching the next to be irresponsible.  If we want our world to improve, we need to rethink how our children are being raised.