Child Brides and Historical Moralism

[melthebell 865]

 

They had no state, but I'm certainly willing to put forward that they had rules to live by. That's the nature of being human. They weren't just killing and raping and stealing with no immunity, although I suspect it wasn't uncommon.

 

That entire statement is guesswork though, as early mankind didn't write anything down for us to look at today. Early religion is moralising, and philosophising, so I presume early man was doing the same before it could be noted.

no, im guessing we had no rules to start with then somebody put themselves up as top dog and rules were brought in

women have always been bottom of the pile tho, in a mainly mans world

[Cavegirl 10]

The average life expectancy in 1400AD Britain was 30 years old for a commoner. The reason girls were married young was because their parents wanted to ensure their future before they themselves died.

 

I imagine it's the same for modern cultures that marry their children young- either they still have a low life expectancy or their cultural attachment to child marriage has been too strong to break down so far.

 

 

Ahh, just seen cgkSheff's post, he got their before me

Edited July 21, 2013 by Cavegirl

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

The entire concept of childhood is a modern creation too.

 

As I say, I can't feel the same revulsion to a child bride in the medieval era as I do about modern cases.

[natjack 10]

A few more modern day examples of forced child marriage, mel. It's about time some of these oh so moral countries brought themselves up to date in regard to sex with children. It's disgusting that parents and other adult family members do this to their kids.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001029/Child-brides-young-5-married-secret-middle-aged-men.html

 

Although they don't all look very happy about it. And it explains about the health and physical consequences of children having babies.

 

As least in this country within recorded memory, we've had a self imposed 'age of consent' of 12 for girls, which most people complied with. Margaret Beaufort was married at 12 and bore her son at 13, which even the people of the time thought was too young.

[maxmaximus 10]

After another thread got sidetracked, I'll happily discuss it here.

 

 

 

 

Is it unfair to judge another culture in history from a modern standpoint?

Should we try to understand, or is having a 12 year old wife wrong whatever year it is?

If having a 12 year old wife is okay for 1400, why is it wrong now?

 

I'll be honest, I don't feel the same revulsion to someone taking a child bride in 1400 as I do about people taking child brides now. I feel I should, but I can't summon up the same sense of disgust.

 

Life expectancy was lower in the past so getting married and having babies at a younger age was necessary.

[Electerrific 14]

King John married a 12yr old (Isabella of Anjouleme) in about 1200.

 

So more recently the world seemed to demur when Bill Wyman wed a 13yr old?

[medusa 16]

Even in the middle ages, it was considered bad form to consummate a marriage before the wife could "safely" give birth, although it wasn't always adhered to. Even if a girl was old enough to be fertile, they realised that often their bodies weren't well developed enough to deliver a child. These marriages were purely political and financial contracts.

 

Even that was tolerated if the husband was of a sufficient rank. Take, for just one example of a proven instance because it happened amongst the nobility and was therefore recorded, Margaret Beaufort, who gave birth to her son just before the age of 13.

 

If it happened to her when she was married to the king's brother then it's pretty certain that it happened to plenty of other young girls who were not considered noted enough to have their lives even recorded.

 

It was different times, most people lived very short, cold, hungry and painful lives and I have no way of knowing what it was like to have to try to negotiate your way through the world at that point in history. What's the point in condemning them when their world was not at all the same as ours?

[Moosey 10]

Why are we, England, morally right?

 

In various American states and other places, when 17 year old boy has sex with 16 year old girl he is effectively a paedophile. He has sex under the age of consent. They act perfectly legally here.

 

We judge other countries as wrong for having their age of consent at 14, 12 or whatever, but why are we the ones that are right? Are we very wrong by American standards?

 

Not thinking historically here but in modern law.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

What's the point in condemning them when their world was not at all the same as ours?

To understand human behaviour - to moralise. To work out what is good and what is evil.

 

If it's okay to marry a 12 year old when life is cold and hard, is it wrong to marry a 12 year old in 2013?

[Electerrific 14]

Why are we, England, morally right?

 

In various American states and other places, when 17 year old boy has sex with 16 year old girl he is effectively a paedophile. He has sex under the age of consent. They act perfectly legally here.

 

We judge other countries as wrong for having their age of consent at 14, 12 or whatever, but why are we the ones that are right? Are we very wrong by American standards?

 

Not thinking historically here but in modern law.

Yes, Americans are usually wrong, judging by their gun laws, recent race case (Martin) and their Capital Punishment system.

[maxmaximus 10]

To understand human behaviour - to moralise. To work out what is good and what is evil.

 

If it's okay to marry a 12 year old when life is cold and hard, is it wrong to marry a 12 year old in 2013?

 

That depends on which part of the world you live.

[natjack 10]

Why are we, England, morally right?

 

In various American states and other places, when 17 year old boy has sex with 16 year old girl he is effectively a paedophile. He has sex under the age of consent. They act perfectly legally here.

 

We judge other countries as wrong for having their age of consent at 14, 12 or whatever, but why are we the ones that are right? Are we very wrong by American standards?

 

Not thinking historically here but in modern law.

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

The American definition of paedophilia must be different from ours then? He might be a sex offender, but that's entirely different. Just having sex under the age of consent doesn't make him a paedophile.