• Transcript: Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’ 
• ABC’s readers comments
• Sex Is Evil: Film at 11 | Sexual Intelligence
• See improper relationships and crimes against nature committed by other women

Double standard: men punished more harshly then women

• If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.
• Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.
• In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?

Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!

In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)

• adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.
• pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.
• Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.
• In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state  pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.
• Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.
• Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men  have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of
  • decades of enforced ruinous child support  and alimony duty
  • with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent.
  • No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.

Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.

Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.

Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?

Human-Stupidity.com is getting ostracized for daring to question conventional dogma:

• Anything remotely sexual, indecent touch of adolescents is a heinous crime and deserve decades in jail, vigilante beatings, death penalty?
• Anyone who just merely questions the laws and punishments, like we so here, risks to incur the same punishments. We have been warned of the possibility of vigilante action and legal persecution, in spite of the fact that nobody here engages in sex with teenagers  much less in sex with children, or peruses child pornography, But, like in the middle ages where the mere thought of contradicting the bible was a dangerous sacrilege, our new witch hunts have new thought crimes. 
• Furnishing alcohol to minors is a crime. But it does not carry decade-long jail sentences, nor does it occupy large parts of Interpol, even though it can lead to accidental death, deadly fights, miscarriages and fetuses deformed for life. We also don’t penalize Hollywood movies of adolescents smoking or drinking. Maybe punishments for sexual offenses should be comparable to these.

What damage would be done if government did not meddle in consensual decisions of adolescent teenagers.?

Do adolescents need to be protected by draconian punishments from their own decisions?

Probably the very last free study, the Rind Study answered that no major damage is expected.

Scientific answers and scientific inquiry on adolescent sexuality is totally impossible

Once the US Senate condemns scientific research by a 99:0 vote, the congress by a similarly unanimous vote, not on its merit, but on pure demagogic knee jerk reactions, science is finished. It is impossible to conduct unbiased research about adolescent and child sexuality and its potential damages, or lack thereof.

Totally independent of policy and legal implications, we totally condemn political repression of scientific research as contrary to everything modern US and Western constitutions and research traditions stand for.

On July 12th, this year, the United States House of Representatives voted 355-0 (with 13 members voting "present") to condemn our study entitled "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples," published in Psychological Bulletin. The Senate quickly followed suit. To our knowledge, never before in the history of this country has a scientific publication been so treated. Rind Study controversy

Research about adolescent and childhood sexuality in the 21st Century is s impossible. Equally impossible unbiased research about planetary movements In the 17th Century during the medieval reign of the catholic church that the burned astronomer Giordano Bruno and and nearly burned Galileo Galilei. Galileo escaped death only because he backpedalled and denied the truth his research had found.

No scientific research is possible when the results are determined beforehand and it is known that certain findings will lead to serious consequences.

While it would be interesting to discuss the Rind Study on its scientific merits, this can not be done with seriousness as long as one side can not get grants, will be fired if possible, and risks vigilante vendetta.

• Of course, the same is true about research into race and iq: unbiased research is impossible when Jensen gets pelted with tomatoes, Rushton almost got dismissed in spite of having tenure and being the most prolific and most cited scientist of the psychology department of his University, and Nobel Prize winner James Watson gets fired from his own institute and his solt-out lecture cancelled for suggesting that Africa’s problems might be caused by lower intelligence of the black race
• similar issues apply to illicit drugs like marijuana

Adults seriously endangering and damaging children suffer little or no legal consequences

• If someone gives alcohol, cigarettes to children, they don’t get 20 years in jail.
• Even consistently overfeeding children and toddlers on junk foods that cause severe health damage and early death remains totally unpunished.
• Pregnant women drinking alcohol crippling their fetus for life with fetal alcohol syndrome go unpunished.
• Bullying in school is also not seriously

Ancient reasons for double standard in adolescent sexuality are no more valid

• Our religious traditions, and our "gut feelings" were made in the EEA, 100 000 years ago.
• Historically, there is a reason for the double standard. Girls can get pregnant, have to support the child, become un-marriageable. This has changed

Historical situation	Modern Situation
Girl could get pregnant	We have birth control. Even in case of pregnancy, girl has full capacity to decide for (early) abortion
Girl could not afford to support the baby	Women are supposed to be empowered and able to earn money children get day care single mothers get welfare Men get forced to pay child support with all the power of the law
Girls who lost virginity, or worse, got pregnant were unmarriageable	Society has changed. Single mothers are not heavily ostracized any more.
Boys who impregnated girls could shirk financial responsibility	Everywhere in the world, men are totally responsible for their offspring. Sometimes even if it is not their offspring. Medieval debtor’s prison has been re-instituted: many men are in jail for refusal or incapacity to pay child support. Boys have absolutely no reproductive rights, absolutely no control if a pregnancy will et carried to term or not. They are obliged to pay, totally dependent on the woman’s decision.

• We have birth control and abortion.  So the girl has full control if she wants to have the baby or not.  Men have no control. That is already a serious power imbalance among adults.

  • Minors are legally are not able to enter into legal contracts. It seems very strange that young boys can get ordered to pay child support for decades. There would be very strong legal and psychological argument that the minor has not the capacity to enter into 20 year contracts (especially with an adult!)
  • Maybe impregnating a minor should be the crime, not the sexual act.

If the woman got pregnant, the boy would have to have to pay child support for 20 years, maybe even without being able to see his children. Human-Stupidity thinks that

• being obliged, under serious threats of legal consequences, to pay child support for decades, is traumatic for an adolescent
• while we have strong doubts about prevailing wisdom that an adolescent can not consent to sex, we feel much stronger that an adolescent can not consent to a 20 year obligation to pay a large portion of his income. Or worse, to be obliged to generate income instead of studying.
• an adolescent girl who had unprotected sex with a man always has the option to get an abortion. They boy only has the option to pay.

Related articles

In this Video, the great Steven Pinker how and why we convey innuendos instead of overt clear language.  Why do we use veiled hidden messages behind our words. The topic is  clarified with nice enlightening drawings by rsa-animate. Must see!

I leave it to the watcher, what this has to do with our favorite topics like dishonesty, unconsciousness,hypocrisy …

an evolutionary perspective [...] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

Finally an intelligent comment about the moral condemnation hysteria of Tiger Woods.  Evolutionary Theory by Kurzban and deScioli

Men fantasize about novel women. Rich powerful man can actually get them

Tiger is a man with immense wealth and social status. Throughout history, men with wealth and status have tended to trade it for access to multiple mates. Evolutionary historian Laura Betzig has documented this pattern in modern societies and throughout history, as in the abundant cases of Roman emperors, Indian maharajahs, Arabian sheiks, and Chinese mandarins. Bhupinder Singh, the wealthy and powerful Seventh Maharajah of the state of Patiala, for example, had 350 wives, and he by no means held the record. European and North American states tend to be officially monogamous, but of course they are unofficially polygamous as well. Rock stars, famous athletes, politicians and even television evangelists are reliable sources of public outrage, which fires up every time we learn about their frequently overactive private lives.[...]

Kinsey found that the typical male masturbated with some frequency, during such activities men often fantasize about novel women. What if the man was sufficiently attractive that those fantasy women were actually ready, willing, and eager to turn desire into reality? The average heterosexual man would, under those circumstances, perhaps act like the average homosexual man (who is unconstrained by a more selective target audience), or like the average rock superstar: he would take hundreds of partners.

Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

Moral outrage keeps others in check. So powerful men don’t monopolize too many women

Rob Kurzban and Peter DeScioli argue that moral reactions are not so much about checking our own selfish tendencies, as they are about keeping other people in line. [...]  we are rather good at forgiving ourselves a few transgressions. But we have a much lower threshold for turning on the moral outrage when we see someone else [...] Our emotional brains want to hold powerful individuals to a "higher standard" of behavior because, in ancestral times, it would have been in our selfish interests to keep our more successful fellows from drinking too freely from the limited common pool of mating opportunities. And in modern societies, where some people acquire immense amounts of wealth and power, monogamy can still reduce intra-male competition. 

So, an evolutionary perspective [...] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

All quotes from
Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

Video Robert Kurzban explains why everyone (else) is a hypocrite 

"Unborn child pornography is unborn child abuse. In any of its forms, it is an affront to humanity. Any delay in reporting unborn child pornography gives a green light to those who take pleasure from the rape of unborn children."                   (Adapted freely from protectchildren.ca/app/en/mandatory

.

Perverts take ultrasound photos of unborn babies and  distribute them on the internet. source  But does it harm nobody? Weinstein’s critics argue that merely “viewing” unborn child porn does real harm to unborn kids by perpetuating a $3 billion annual market. The Justice Department estimates that in creating their product, unborn child pornographers have abused 1 million unborn kids in the United States. And some studies suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of viewers of unborn child porn also molest a child.     (freely adapted from theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/jack-weinstein/8273/)

Fetuses engaging in indecent touching. Perverts owning such photos deserve to be raped in jail forever. This picture would be rated 7 on the 10 point Copine child pornography scale: Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult. The fetuses also should be arrested at birth:  handcuffed, jailed, and be registered as sex offenders for life.

It is important to realize that these images are crime scene photos – they are a permanent record of the abuse of an unborn child. The lives of the unborn children featured in these illegal images and videos are forever altered. Once these images are on the Internet, they are irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. The unborn child is revictimized as the images are viewed again and again.         (adapted freely from missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504)     “He didn’t intend to hurt anyone. However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.”  thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9019133.html

Technology has made it possible to have unborn porn. Source: uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Child_porn I thank Uncycolpedia for their child porn persiflage which gave me inspiration for this article

Children of 17 years, 12 years, 5 years, 1 year, 1 month of age are all protected strict laws from being abused  by viewers of sexual erotic photos and videos. Owning such photos of children and looking at such photos and videos is child abuse.

But why this 0-18 year age limit? The 18 year cutoff rate already is getting softened. Europe and Australia already punish the possession of depictions of "aparently underage" for 22 year old women in pony tails that look as if they were 17 years old. Thus  the law now protects young looking 22 year old women from child abuse. (see 17 year old "children"?)

Now we need to work on the other end of the age range. Who says that the lower age limit  for child pornography prosecutions has to be zero year old new borns? Embryos and fetuses need protection against abuse and rape, too. Right from conception, when human life is created.

Unborn-child-porn leads to 100 000′s child killings

Often such ultrasound photos are the first step in the monstrous killing of unborn babies. Most abortionists demand ultrasound photos of the unborn child before killing it.  Or even with mothers who did not plan to kill the unborn child, ultrasound pictures discover a problem with the child and thus cause her to decide to kill the innocent unborn child.

And these child killings feed the market for mutilated dead-fetus-porn (dead-unborn-child-porn)

Mutilated dead unborn-child-porn (mutilated fetus porn)

Warning: fairly gruesome photos follow. Dead-unborn-child-porn, mainly from "pro-life" organizations.

Warning: very graphic pictures. These fotos are so gruesome, we will not endeavour to publish them. Many are clearly unborn-child=porn, as the genitals are obscenely exposed. We only publish censored blacked-out pixelated versions. Click to see the uncensored mutilated dead unborn-child-porn. 

Dead fetuses in indecent poses with genitals exposed

There are people who produce, collect, distribute depictions of dead and mutilated unborn children. Pedophiles know no bounds.

Obviously people getting their kicks from watching these photos. Embryos in indecent position with genitals clearly visible. There is an entire web site dedicated to such cruelty. Remember: each time a mutilated embryo is being looked at, it is suffering mutilation again!

• Unborn child with obscenely opened legs and clearly visible genitals
• Dead fetus with in indecent position showing genitals
• Mutilated fetus with legs opened indecently
• Indecent exposure of the behind of an aborted fetus

Rumors are these unborn child pedophiles (also perversely called pro-life) rummage in garbage bins to find life-less victims to photograph.

Some 300, 000 children a year are taken from their wombs because of neglect and abuse. The most horrific crime that can done to an unborn child is sexual abuse. The ridiculous idea is that you can stop abuse by allowing digital unborn child porn. I was a real unborn child exposed to unborn child pornography and it almost killed me.

[...] Unborn child pornography is one of the most overlooked forms of unborn child abuse that exists. This is due in part to the misconception that these victims are willing participants.

[...] The effects of pornography on unborn children specifically and society as a whole are quite obvious. Almost all agree, even the researchers from this study, that in the case of unborn child pornography, where a real unborn child is videotaped or photographed there is always a victim.

Most would also agree the effects are similar for the victims whose pictures have been altered and their face is superimposed on an adult body.        (Freely adapted after MICHAEL REAGAN: Child Porn Is Child Abuse. I Know Because It Happened to Me)

Dead fetus porn (dead-unborn-child-pornography)

Dead fetuses are seen all over the internet! Just because they did not die a violent death by the hand of man does not mean they are not victims.

A six week embryonic age or eight week gestational age intact Embryo, found ia Ruptured Ectopic pregnancy case. source

Victim of a spontaneous abortion, in indecent position with legs wide open. Each time this photo gets looked at, the fetus gets abused again. A complete spontaneous abortion at about 6 weeks from conception, i.e. 8 weeks    source

Twin unborn child pornography

Twin fetuses, of same sex of of opposite sex, confined into a small space.  

Two fetuses together. Why would anyone want to look at such photos?

Two clearly underage fetuses together in close contact. A pedophile’s fantasy

.

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

• The anti child porn crusaders give the (absurd) impression that the average man is prone to get sexually excited by depictions of pre-pubertal children and babies. Men can get in trouble for photographing their own child.
• The anti child porn crusaders suggest that the prohibition of such photos protects children from rape and abuse. 
  • it seems the opposite is the case: Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii). In other words, the entire child pornography craze probably backfires, and actually increase violent rapes and abuse of children.
  • These photos of adolescent and child nudity are so dangerous, we even  sacrifice airline safety due to insane child porn laws, to make sure nobody can see the outlines of an adolescent body on an airport scanner’s screen.
  • It is perfectly legal to show, for profit, on mainstream TV movies of children getting humiliated in fights, beaten to death, stoned to death,

• Child porn laws are dangerous in many ways: Cruel child porn laws kill, "destroying lives unnecessarily” (Judge Jack B. Weinstein)
• so human-stupidity.com just extends that allegation that most men are prone to attraction  and sexual activity with pre-pubescent children to the equally preposterous allegation that lots of men would get sexually excited by nudity of unborn fetuses
• We understand that some people find it perverse, that we make jokes about "child pornography"
  • Some misunderstanding stems from the perverse fact that due to absurd alteration of our vocabulary,  "Children" can be 17 years old (17 year old "children"? )and "pornography" can be nude photos or even videos of dressed girls in Leotard dancing provocatively. (Knox vs. United States). So Child pornography spans the gamut of 15 year old girls in Leotards dancing provocatively, to 17 year olds photographing themselves in the nude,  to 3 year olds getting violently penetrated and mistreated
  • we think John Wayne Bobbitt dick cutting jokes are tasteless ** “I remember waking up in a pool of blood, with my penis missing, and my first thought was, ‘Y’know, this would make a really amusing stand-up comedy routine.’”…”They told me they were going to re-attach my penis using Micro-Surgery. I was humiliated. I wanted Jumbo-Surgery”… “My medical and attorney bills are over $750,000. Not to brag, but that’s $95,000 per inch”…
  • We think that most literature and legislation child porn sound like bad jokes ( Voodoo science of child pornography laws). Most of the texts from this article were directly adapted from real texts for child pornography persecution apologists.
  • We are outraged that thousands of upstanding normal men are in jail for decades, for possession of so called "child porn", most of which is neither porn nor involves what normal people would call children.
  • But it is not clear to us, why even mere possession of real porn involving real children should be such a terrible crime deserving higher prison terms then the actual act of child abuse.
  • This is shown by the following macabre child-porn-joke. Though somewhat tasteless, we believe it has a deeper meaning:

After being found guilty of the abduction, torture, sexual abuse and then murder of one child, I would have thought now being caught wanking over child porn was demonstrating an improvement in behaviour.  sickipedia.org/getjokes/similar/489667

In case you don’t get the deep meaning of the joke

• according to Dr. Diamond’s research, child porn reduces child abuse crimes exactly because pedophiles get an outlet for their sexual drive.
• even judges protest the insane sentencing laws in the US that punish possession of child porn with higher mandatory jail sentences then for actual child abuse.

Related articles

Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?

Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like  Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first  and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto.  Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?

Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest  of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others,  while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?). 

In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others,  The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.

Polygyny in birds

When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.

Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748 (all quotes are from Kurzban’s book. This book is a must-read to really understand this topic here)

mating pattern of certain bird species illustrates what’s known as the "polygyny threshold model," which has to do with how female birds choose a mate in certain complex environments. [...] Is it better to be the only mate of a poorer male or share a better one? I [a female bird]  can either nest with one of the remaining single – but lower quality- males, or I can nest with a [better high quality] male who is already paired, becoming the second female on his [bigger and better] patch. [...] When the payoff to being the second female on a patch is greater then the payoff to being the only mate of an inferior male, there will be polygyny. (Kurzban, pg. 208)

Morality for the birds?

To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny.  He asks

Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?

1. "Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
2. "There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear  offspring and thus have reproductive success!  Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
3. Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? [...] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule. 
4. High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy  on other males.  Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
5. The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’)  because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources). 
6. The other losers  of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211). 
7. "Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)"  (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.

We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.

"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."

So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.

We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature

• Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748 |Amazon paperback or kindle version 

Modern birth control, social support, DNA tests render old moralistic modules unnecessary

Of course, nowadays Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods, even attorney general Spitzer can easily afford 4 wives with 15 kids. Neither Elin nor Hillary even noticed the infidelity, much less suffered any serious disadvantages.  But, our brain modules, formed in the EEA to condemn other people’s private behavior, behavior that victimizes nobody, remain strong. Even the most powerful man on earth (the US president) is being prevented by strong moral rules to have a second wife or concubines.

Additionally, the availability of birth control, abortion, and DNA paternity tests, and government handouts to the poor, make most old sex laws unnecessary. Virginity is no more the only way to make sure that the offspring is really the husband’s.