If our general assembly does pass this bill, they’ll make a big point of how they are championing the rights of women and girls, and immediately segue into the morality of their forced-birther law (passed by both houses, vetoed by Gov. Roy Cooper). This law prohibits abortion if the pregnant person seeks to terminate based on race, gender or Down syndrome of the fetus. Because it’s their business to decide what reasons are acceptable for a woman or girl to control her reproductive life, starting with deciding whether she gets married before she’s old enough to buy her own cigarettes.
Apparently the Women's Law Center of Maryland is only human. Many organizations have hired the wrong person to be their executive director and have regretted the choice. I will now speculate that this is the case here. Sorry but I simply cannot agree that this is a useful way to deal with a bad problem.
I can't speak for marriages in biblical times, but many marriages of the ruling class in European history had the same issue - an adult man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. It's important to know that getting married did not necessarily mean the couple began having sex.
Marriages in this class were about extending the wealth and power of the dynasty rather than love, and there was no point in a man having sex with a girl too young to conceive. While a marriage had to be "consummated" to be legal ("consummation" usually being understood as having sex), there were a number of legal work-arounds. Skin contact between parts of the body usually covered in public, like touching the sole of the foot to the new spouse's ribs, was considered to satisfy the requirement. This could even be done "by proxy"; ie the entire marriage ceremony, including foot-to side consummation, could be performed by other people representing the bride and/or groom. The happy couple didn't even have to be in the same country.
It was also recognised that it was a bad idea for the couple to have sex before the bride had physically matured enough to cope with pregnancy; 15 was considered the minimum age. Before this age, pregnancy was simply too dangerous. Birth was long and difficult, the baby usually died, and even if the mother survived her fertility might be permanently impaired. It was stupid for a man to damage his breeding stock because of impatience, when he could have all the sex he wanted with mistresses. This was a practical rather than an compassionate concession, but very young children were not viewed as legitimate sex partners any more than they are now.
Of course there were some creeps who liked 'em young, but they were side-eyed and regarded with distaste. Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII of England, was 13 at Henry's birth. It was quite the scandal. She was openly referred to as a "little girl", and her confessor later said "It was a miracle that of such a little personage, anyone could be born at all". The birth was long and extremely difficult, and everyone was astonished both mother and baby survived (it was a near thing, and Henry's survival was put down to Margaret's dogged care of him). She was married three times and lived to her mid-60s, but never fell pregnant again. Her peers openly ascribed this to physical damage caused by her too-early pregnancy.
All of which is to say - in our current culture, it's assumed that a married couple are having sex. But there have been cultures where it was acceptable for an adult man to marry pre-pubescent girls, but not acceptable for that man to have sex with his "wife" until she'd physically matured. I don't know enough about the societies in the Bible to say whether or not that applied to them, but it seems reasonable. If nothing else, they were animal herders. They must have recognised that too-early mating risked the lives of mother and baby, and probable they applied that knowledge to their own marriage practices.
None of this applies to modern Evangelicals, obviously, because they're vile perverts whose only interest is in controlling and hurting others. This is just to point out that when they point to the "biblical precedent" of child marriage, they're probably completely wrong. As usual.
…an adult person can marry a 12-year-old girl there [in Massachusetts], so long as her parents consent. Same for a 14-year-old boy. And yet at the same time, the legal age of consent to sex there is 16. So basically they're saying 12-year-olds are capable of giving consent to marry an adult, but not to sleep with them.
Actually it’s worse than that. 12-year-olds don’t get to give consent or not at all; it’s their PARENTS who pimp them out to other adults. I can’t possibly imagine a parent who would do that to their child.
Dude mansplains feminism after weirdly bragging about other men treating his wife like as a superior talking fuck puppet.
Does so by explaining that how women use our limited sexual agency is complicated, thus his celebrating women as fuck puppets is actually feminist! and awesome!
I hope you are an actual troll and not this much of an idiot mansplaining sexist arrogant ignorant ass in real life.
Correct. These are fundigelical girls who have been taught to "keep sweet" and to obey all of the men in their lives.
These are girls like the Duggar daughters. They can 100% be controlled because they've been literally taught from the time that they were out of the womb that if they disobey their headship (their father, husband, or even male siblings), they *will* go to Hell.
Yep she was 15, he was 32. He wrote this song
I am sorry for you, losing your mom is so hard, it's been twenty years now, and I still miss mine.
Ah yes, the Matt Gaetz request.
If our general assembly does pass this bill, they’ll make a big point of how they are championing the rights of women and girls, and immediately segue into the morality of their forced-birther law (passed by both houses, vetoed by Gov. Roy Cooper). This law prohibits abortion if the pregnant person seeks to terminate based on race, gender or Down syndrome of the fetus. Because it’s their business to decide what reasons are acceptable for a woman or girl to control her reproductive life, starting with deciding whether she gets married before she’s old enough to buy her own cigarettes.
You are right. It is BS. Those are not feminists. Those are faux-feminists.
Apparently the Women's Law Center of Maryland is only human. Many organizations have hired the wrong person to be their executive director and have regretted the choice. I will now speculate that this is the case here. Sorry but I simply cannot agree that this is a useful way to deal with a bad problem.
Asking for a friend whose name rhymes with "Fat Mates"?
I can't speak for marriages in biblical times, but many marriages of the ruling class in European history had the same issue - an adult man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. It's important to know that getting married did not necessarily mean the couple began having sex.
Marriages in this class were about extending the wealth and power of the dynasty rather than love, and there was no point in a man having sex with a girl too young to conceive. While a marriage had to be "consummated" to be legal ("consummation" usually being understood as having sex), there were a number of legal work-arounds. Skin contact between parts of the body usually covered in public, like touching the sole of the foot to the new spouse's ribs, was considered to satisfy the requirement. This could even be done "by proxy"; ie the entire marriage ceremony, including foot-to side consummation, could be performed by other people representing the bride and/or groom. The happy couple didn't even have to be in the same country.
It was also recognised that it was a bad idea for the couple to have sex before the bride had physically matured enough to cope with pregnancy; 15 was considered the minimum age. Before this age, pregnancy was simply too dangerous. Birth was long and difficult, the baby usually died, and even if the mother survived her fertility might be permanently impaired. It was stupid for a man to damage his breeding stock because of impatience, when he could have all the sex he wanted with mistresses. This was a practical rather than an compassionate concession, but very young children were not viewed as legitimate sex partners any more than they are now.
Of course there were some creeps who liked 'em young, but they were side-eyed and regarded with distaste. Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII of England, was 13 at Henry's birth. It was quite the scandal. She was openly referred to as a "little girl", and her confessor later said "It was a miracle that of such a little personage, anyone could be born at all". The birth was long and extremely difficult, and everyone was astonished both mother and baby survived (it was a near thing, and Henry's survival was put down to Margaret's dogged care of him). She was married three times and lived to her mid-60s, but never fell pregnant again. Her peers openly ascribed this to physical damage caused by her too-early pregnancy.
All of which is to say - in our current culture, it's assumed that a married couple are having sex. But there have been cultures where it was acceptable for an adult man to marry pre-pubescent girls, but not acceptable for that man to have sex with his "wife" until she'd physically matured. I don't know enough about the societies in the Bible to say whether or not that applied to them, but it seems reasonable. If nothing else, they were animal herders. They must have recognised that too-early mating risked the lives of mother and baby, and probable they applied that knowledge to their own marriage practices.
None of this applies to modern Evangelicals, obviously, because they're vile perverts whose only interest is in controlling and hurting others. This is just to point out that when they point to the "biblical precedent" of child marriage, they're probably completely wrong. As usual.
For a country concerned with other people's morality y'all sure let some disgusting shit slide
…an adult person can marry a 12-year-old girl there [in Massachusetts], so long as her parents consent. Same for a 14-year-old boy. And yet at the same time, the legal age of consent to sex there is 16. So basically they're saying 12-year-olds are capable of giving consent to marry an adult, but not to sleep with them.
Actually it’s worse than that. 12-year-olds don’t get to give consent or not at all; it’s their PARENTS who pimp them out to other adults. I can’t possibly imagine a parent who would do that to their child.
Exactly.
The highest incidences of child marriages are in West Virginia, Florida, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi....
Thank you.
Perfectly said. That's in their Grifty Oppressive Prick DNA. *banhammerable redactions*
Dude mansplains feminism after weirdly bragging about other men treating his wife like as a superior talking fuck puppet.
Does so by explaining that how women use our limited sexual agency is complicated, thus his celebrating women as fuck puppets is actually feminist! and awesome!
I hope you are an actual troll and not this much of an idiot mansplaining sexist arrogant ignorant ass in real life.
Correct. These are fundigelical girls who have been taught to "keep sweet" and to obey all of the men in their lives.
These are girls like the Duggar daughters. They can 100% be controlled because they've been literally taught from the time that they were out of the womb that if they disobey their headship (their father, husband, or even male siblings), they *will* go to Hell.
And they're fanatics, so they believe it.