"Do you know any 12 year olds that got married? I do. Guess what, they're still married." :epstein:
Back on :reddit-logo: I remember getting the H I S T O R I C A L A C C U R A C Y defense for that. One of them even said "you're saying my own ancestors were pedophiles."
:yes:
Teenagers getting gender affirming care is grooming to them then they breathlessly turn around and defend LITERAL pedophilia.
Karl Rove's playbook continues to get heavy use: they accuse their enemies of what they're guilty of.
thinks about all the stuff QAnon accused Trump's enemies of doing and wondering what kind of fucked up depraved shit republicans do/dream of
Absolutely. Check out what :trump-anguish: openly declared he wanted to do/was doing to his own daughter. And there's also the child paegants and his bragging about peeking into dressing rooms.
Unfortunately Trump gets slept on compared to :didnt-kill-himself:
Guess what, They're still married
You mean people groomed to be in a relationship while the are still young and impressionable are less likely to question a toxic relationship? Shocking! :shocked-pikachu:
less likely to question a toxic relationship
hell, not even that, necessarily. they could easily want out but just be trapped by the power asymmetry
Also someone married that young is less likely to have support circles outside of the immediate family.
and that immediate family is often reactionary and in favor of the marriage
It's like whether or not people divorce or not isn't the be all and end all sign of whether a relationship is healthy or not. There was probably a lot less divorce when wives could just be fucking bought as well.
Right? How is someone who was married at 12 and I guess presumably kept home from that point supposed to get the resources to not be homeless if they leave?
Back on I remember getting the H I S T O R I C A L A C C U R A C Y defense for that.
The funniest part is that's not even historically accurate, at least for the most part. There weren't always formal laws, and obviously abuse and predation happened, but for the most part puberty happened later and for both commoners and nobility marriage (or at least the actual consummation of marriage) happened later, in the late teens or early 20s. Even where you have some aristocratic arranged marriage that's happening at 12, usually the married couple would be prevented from cohabitating or having unsupervised contact by their families. Obviously that wasn't always the case, but it was the standard because peasants needed their adult children to stick around the farm and do work into their 20s, and even aristocrats as depraved as they were had access to institutional knowledge that early pregnancies were very, very bad and not worth the risks.
The mainstreaming of noncery came with the industrial and agricultural revolutions as puberty began happening earlier and the social structures that previously prevented (or at least cut down on) men preying on young girls were dissolved by the needs of industrial Capital. It's pretty much just a phenomenon of the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries, with some exceptions.
Any sources on the puberty hitting earlier thing? It's just the first I've heard of it and wanna see what the deal is. I'm guessing dietary stuff but yeah.
This is just summarizing a bunch of disparate things I've read or heard, but yeah it's malnutrition related.
Was there like...archeological evidence? Known if this was a specific to medieval europe or if royalty hit puberty earlier due to better nutrition etc? I gotta go to bed but it feels a bit off...
It probably involved that, but also just historical documentation, spotty as that may be. I think it was specific to Europe too, yeah.
Had a brief look into it and it'd soooorta true. Women started menstruating a couple years later on average but all other aspects of puberty were the same timeline as modern age.
Edit: this seems to have a large class component cause girls worked harder and contracted diseases and the less nutrition angle, since this is also based mostly on skeletal data, probably the fact that it was mostly the poor people that feel into bogs and got preserved and are generally the data set for skeletal studies from this time cause ones put in tombs and shit tended not to last as long and those guys wrote down their lives anyway. It would be even hard to guarantee that this was even the average among the poorer people or just the average amongst the ones that died in places that skeletal evidence could be found. So I'd say, not UN true but I'd wouldn't call it universal in any way. Based on how the data was gathered a very specific set of evidence was generalized and blown up into a pop science generalization.
"You're doing human trafficking"
"Oh, so my ancestors were slave owners now?"
It's terminal Main Character Syndrome thinking. They, and their long dead predecessors, must be the good guys always. :galaxy-brain:
Or maybe your ancestors saw woman as property. And were pedophiles.
"IT WAS NORMAL AT THE TIME YOU CAN'T JUDGE THE PAST BY THE PRESENT'S STANDARDS" :wojak-nooo:
:agony-soviet: Oh yeah?
There is for sure a statute of limitations there but that basically cuts off for us around the start of mercantilism. It's not really a set time frame but yknow, I'm not about to get mad at a swede cause significant fucking material shifts have occurred that makes certain historical relations irrelevant because that dialectic has smoothed out. If it wasn't necessary to judge these specific instances of history through a present lense people wouldn't be getting educational use from doing so, compared to say applying the mindset to a mideval peasant and wondering why they aren't atheists. It'd cause a midieval peasant being religious doesn't really have the modern consequences of creeps historically fucking kids and that being used as a reason to do so now. It's just a piss poor and self serving way of looking at the past that justifies only bad stuff.
This bozo voted against a law that would raise the age a minor could marry someone over 21 from 15 to 17. So he thinks a 15 year old should legally be allowed to marry like some 40 year old (not that 17 is much better).
This whole insistence a lot of conservatives have that children should be allowed to marry adults is of course reprehensible... but also just bizarre to me. Like, I grew up deep in conservative, fundamentalist evangelical culture. And the idea of teenagers getting married would have been appalling to everyone I know. But I also grew up in the suburbs of a big city. Who is actually for this? Is this some rural cultural thing?
Conservatives believe they should have absolute control over kids, especially their own. If they want to marry off their 12-year-old daughter to Effrey Jepstein, they should have the right to do so.
america is far worse
nonce island comes from a single industry (showbiz) being infested by paedos
america is paedos all the way down
I do, she got blown away to heaven while bringing the sheets in off the clothesline
