Your kind of argument could also apply to the Tibetan child sex slave system because it was "historically not a big deal" and lots of revered religious figures participated for centuries.
Come to think of it, "culturally accepted" is such a blank check that female genital mutilation, throwing widows onto funeral pyres, and "honor killings" can also apply.
:mao-wtf: :sus-soviet:
EDIT: How convenient to mention Mohammad's first marriage without mentioning his third marriage to a 9 year old when he was in his 50s. But it was so culturally accepted that excuses and apologia were made about that for centuries afterward to this day :morshupls:
Also, the text says "consummated" the marriage when he was in his 50s and she was 9. No excuses.
EDIT: Also, "between adults" goalposts moved in a speeding boat all the way to :epstein: 's island in this comment chain. Everything that happened in the past is cool and good because it was socially acceptable in the past, even when it has centuries of controversy and apologia to try to justify it generation after generation. :galaxy-brain:
That's also a historical thing that needs to be looked at in it's cultural and historical context, which is the historical materialist way to analyze it tbh. We can't use "presentism" when looking at things in the past:
Again, a 50 year old violated a single-digit-aged child.
If you're going to wave around the "materialist" totem word like some sort of :expert-shapiro: to justify that with sophistry, I'm done talking to you.
So, the Prophet’s marriage to Ayesha was nothing out of the ordinary for the time in which this marriage took place. Insisting on 21st century (Western) ideas on morality and marriage, which evolved in their own right, for a very different time and place is an ahistorical approach.
So to summarize you're fine with (CW: sexual violence
spoiler
a 50+ year old violating a 9 year old child bride
and are passionately defending that happening because it was accepted at its time. Fuck your "modern standards" sophistry. Even the excuses and apologia for that event go back centuries and you're continuing that apologia. What's wrong with you?
Just wanted to say you're right. "Culturally accepted" might help a person understand something, but it in no way excuses that thing. The whole modern conception of consent exists precisely because several generations of feminists critiqued what was culturally accepted until mainstream society finally realized that they were tacitly allowing some disgusting shit to happen and turned against it.
The two people in this thread that are Materialistically(tm) invested in culturally acceptable creeping on children certainly seem to be wanting to excuse anything that the ruling class does that they happen to have personal stakes in justifying and defending.
It's rich that the old French bougie in the OP isn't really creepy on the same level (as far as I know) but a 50+ year old that took a 9 year old child bride is the voluntary example given by the Materialists(tm) in this thread anyway, in advance.
Your kind of argument could also apply to the Tibetan child sex slave system because it was "historically not a big deal" and lots of revered religious figures participated for centuries.
Come to think of it, "culturally accepted" is such a blank check that female genital mutilation, throwing widows onto funeral pyres, and "honor killings" can also apply.
:mao-wtf: :sus-soviet:
EDIT: How convenient to mention Mohammad's first marriage without mentioning his third marriage to a 9 year old when he was in his 50s. But it was so culturally accepted that excuses and apologia were made about that for centuries afterward to this day :morshupls:
I mean biden did say "between adults" so I'm gonna interpret it charitably.
The child bride after that first wife's death was conveniently omitted. (CW: disturbing SV)
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/
spoiler
Also, the text says "consummated" the marriage when he was in his 50s and she was 9. No excuses.
EDIT: Also, "between adults" goalposts moved in a speeding boat all the way to :epstein: 's island in this comment chain. Everything that happened in the past is cool and good because it was socially acceptable in the past, even when it has centuries of controversy and apologia to try to justify it generation after generation. :galaxy-brain:
That's also a historical thing that needs to be looked at in it's cultural and historical context, which is the historical materialist way to analyze it tbh. We can't use "presentism" when looking at things in the past:
https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/understanding-aishas-age-an-interdisciplinary-approach
(CW: SV)
spoiler
Again, a 50 year old violated a single-digit-aged child.
If you're going to wave around the "materialist" totem word like some sort of :expert-shapiro: to justify that with sophistry, I'm done talking to you.
Ok
Your own source says this:
https://islamfyi.princeton.edu/is-it-true-that-muhammad-married-a-child-bride-by-the-name-of-ayesha-when-he-was-53-and-she-was-9-years-old-if-so-how-do-muslims-justify-this-from-their-exemplary-prophet/
Removed by mod
I didn't deny it, I just pointed out that even in that case it's still ahistorical to apply our modern standards to it, which even your source admits.
So to summarize you're fine with (CW: sexual violence
spoiler
a 50+ year old violating a 9 year old child bride
and are passionately defending that happening because it was accepted at its time. Fuck your "modern standards" sophistry. Even the excuses and apologia for that event go back centuries and you're continuing that apologia. What's wrong with you?
I thought you wanted to disengage?
I said I was done with you but you made a parallel post, so I had to address that.
Sure ok, let's just leave it that then I guess.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Just wanted to say you're right. "Culturally accepted" might help a person understand something, but it in no way excuses that thing. The whole modern conception of consent exists precisely because several generations of feminists critiqued what was culturally accepted until mainstream society finally realized that they were tacitly allowing some disgusting shit to happen and turned against it.
The two people in this thread that are Materialistically(tm) invested in culturally acceptable creeping on children certainly seem to be wanting to excuse anything that the ruling class does that they happen to have personal stakes in justifying and defending.
It's rich that the old French bougie in the OP isn't really creepy on the same level (as far as I know) but a 50+ year old that took a 9 year old child bride is the voluntary example given by the Materialists(tm) in this thread anyway, in advance.