Cyprus-Forum.com

[B25]

Schnauzer, I have to disagree on this point. A paedophile is one that takes an under age, usually young child and rapes her. A woman of 18+ is no child and thus cannot be considered to be raped by a paedophile irrespective of his age. We see this regularly with mega rich blokes with much younger women by their sides.
The profit took a 6 year old as a wife FFS and then raped her when she was 9, if that was considered normal this these pigs need putting down.

[Paphitis]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

[Maximus]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

the problem with this is that the average life expectancy included the very high infant / baby mortality rate of the time.

Maturity takes the same amount of time, irrespective of when people were born so a child will always have been a child. Different times but the human biology was the same.

[Paphitis]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

the problem with this is that the average life expectancy included the very high infant / baby mortality rate of the time.

Maturity takes the same amount of time, irrespective of when people were born so a child will always have been a child. Different times but the human biology was the same.

Maturity? Are you joking?

Most people were friggin illiterate and probably led very basic and simple existences. Kids started working at the age of 8 probably in the fields making food for the village.

[Cap]

I can not understand why this Isis propagandist is still allowed to freely express his vile views.

Under the guise of " well educated" individual he promotes the savages occasionally citing Allah as his guiding light. He is a fucking sick pervert and by now he should be incarcerated.

What makes me utterly sick is that this pervert is free to continue his tirade against the west promoting the savage barbarians who share his disgusting faith.

It's a democracy. He is allowed to express these views.

We are not in Pootin's Russia where he would probably be running for his life by now!

Or Erdogan's 'Turkey'.

[Maximus]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

the problem with this is that the average life expectancy included the very high infant / baby mortality rate of the time.

Maturity takes the same amount of time, irrespective of when people were born so a child will always have been a child. Different times but the human biology was the same.

Maturity? Are you joking?

Most people were friggin illiterate and probably led very basic and simple existences.

I was not talking about mental maturity. I was talking biological maturity.

In terms of biological maturity, a 9 year old back then was the same as a 9 year old today.

However since you mention that, I am keen to find out where you would have taken the debate. Are you saying that it would have been alright for a mature male to copulate with a 9 year old back then because they were thick?

[Paphitis]

I can not understand why this Isis propagandist is still allowed to freely express his vile views.

Under the guise of " well educated" individual he promotes the savages occasionally citing Allah as his guiding light. He is a fucking sick pervert and by now he should be incarcerated.

What makes me utterly sick is that this pervert is free to continue his tirade against the west promoting the savage barbarians who share his disgusting faith.

It's a democracy. He is allowed to express these views.

We are not in Pootin's Russia where he would probably be running for his life by now!

Or Erdogan's 'Turkey'.

Probably he would end up decorated with the key to Ankara.

In Turkey, it will be Milti running for his life!

[Paphitis]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

the problem with this is that the average life expectancy included the very high infant / baby mortality rate of the time.

Maturity takes the same amount of time, irrespective of when people were born so a child will always have been a child. Different times but the human biology was the same.

Maturity? Are you joking?

Most people were friggin illiterate and probably led very basic and simple existences.

I was not talking about mental maturity. I was talking biological maturity.

In terms of biological maturity, a 9 year old back then was the same as a 9 year old today.

However since you mention that, I am keen to find out where you would have taken the debate. Are you saying that it would have been alright for a mature male to copulate with a 9 year old back then because they were thick?

I am saying that back then very young kids were partnered and married off at an extremely young age where they will procreate. I'm not sure about 9 but certainly I would say 12 would be fairly common. I never said it is ok but back then it wasn't practical to leave things to the age of 18 because the children will be orphaned potentially.

[Maximus]

Don't forget the average life expectancy in those days was something like 35 if not less. I'm not sure what it was exactly.

But it wasn't unreasonable for girls and boys to be partnered at a very young age to have children and see them grow into teenagers where they too are partnered just before the parents inevitably die.

Those were different times.

the problem with this is that the average life expectancy included the very high infant / baby mortality rate of the time.

Maturity takes the same amount of time, irrespective of when people were born so a child will always have been a child. Different times but the human biology was the same.

Maturity? Are you joking?

Most people were friggin illiterate and probably led very basic and simple existences.

I was not talking about mental maturity. I was talking biological maturity.

In terms of biological maturity, a 9 year old back then was the same as a 9 year old today.

However since you mention that, I am keen to find out where you would have taken the debate. Are you saying that it would have been alright for a mature male to copulate with a 9 year old back then because they were thick?

I am saying that back then very young kids were partnered and married off at an extremely young age where they will procreate. I'm not sure about 9 but certainly I would say 12 would be fairly common. I never said it is ok but back then it wasn't practical to leave things to the age of 18 because the children will be orphaned potentially.

Can you link as reference to something?

[Maximus]

So you are saying most children became mothers at about 12 years old back then?