1,000+ years ago and maybe even soon

[91TTZ]

10 years old? That's just strange.

A 10 year old girl doesn't look womanly and wouldn't be a turn on for a normal guy.

 

[Tsaico]

From what I understand, it wasn't an specific age thing, but often acceptable after she was able to bear children. Or after she has had a period.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Also the same friend who I am having this debate with now claims the U.S had laws 100 years ago that said the age of consent was 10. Truth to his statement?

I think he just likes multiples of 10. Probably a big fan of the metric system.

 

[TehMac]

In the middle ages, men married at 14-15, and girls married 12 to 13. Basically, when both parties were completing puberty, they'd be engaged and married. Thats for noble families. The Peasants would be about the same age. They'd marry around 17-18. Keep in mind, if you weren't dead by 40, you were considered old and experienced.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
10 years old? That's just strange.

A 10 year old girl doesn't look womanly and wouldn't be a turn on for a normal guy.

What I was thinking.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
what's the "good reason"?

He doesn't want us to say OP, can I say what I think you're getting at??

He's referring to the fact that obese girls hit puberty earlier.
Or maybe not. That's the first thing that popped into my head.

As for the original question, yes. In fact, in some cultures, as soon as the kids hit a stable age - like 6-7 years old (i.e. their physical condition would not be of a concern), they were married (or rather vetted) to each other by their parents. When the girls hit the puberty age, they moved to the house of their 'spouse', but since the boys were too young to perform the duties, the fathers of the boys did it for them until the boys were ready themselves.

 

[OsoVerde]

In the middle ages, there were a lot of politically-minded arranged marriages for nobles and sometimes the girls would be little kids, but the boys would usually also be little kids in those cases.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
what's the "good reason"?

He doesn't want us to say OP, can I say what I think you're getting at??

He's referring to the fact that obese girls hit puberty earlier.
Or maybe not. That's the first thing that popped into my head.

As for the original question, yes. In fact, in some cultures, as soon as the kids hit a stable age - like 6-7 years old (i.e. their physical condition would not be of a concern), they were married (or rather vetted) to each other by their parents. When the girls hit the puberty age, they moved to the house of their 'spouse', but since the boys were too young to perform the duties, the fathers of the boys did it for them until the boys were ready themselves.

 

[paulney]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: paulney

Originally posted by: jrphoenix

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
what's the "good reason"?

He doesn't want us to say OP, can I say what I think you're getting at??

He's referring to the fact that obese girls hit puberty earlier.
Or maybe not. That's the first thing that popped into my head.

As for the original question, yes. In fact, in some cultures, as soon as the kids hit a stable age - like 6-7 years old (i.e. their physical condition would not be of a concern), they were married (or rather vetted) to each other by their parents. When the girls hit the puberty age, they moved to the house of their 'spouse', but since the boys were too young to perform the duties, the fathers of the boys did it for them until the boys were ready themselves.

What's confusing?

Think about it: in a peasant's family, a boy is an asset, while a girl is a liability. Therefore girl's parents were quite happy to move her off their hands. And since the other party was getting another mouth to feed, the girl had to earn her share of food. Men of the family worked in the field, while the girls... well, they gave birth to children.

 

[Bryophyte]

Why did you repeatedly bait people with "don't ask me why I want to know"? Do you want people to think you're a pedophile? That your roommate is? Did one of you get caught with kiddie porn on your computer or caught on one of those Dateline Predator shows?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

OP is banging a 10 year old and looking for historical validation?

 

[Kadarin]

You all need to seperate "marriage" from "have sex with". It is entirely possible that people could marry children for purely political reasons.

Whether this is what Aimster is talking about, I do not know.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: paulney

Think about it: in a peasant's family, a boy is an asset, while a girl is a liability. Therefore girl's parents were quite happy to move her off their hands. And since the other party was getting another mouth to feed, the girl had to earn her share of food. Men of the family worked in the field, while the girls... well, they gave birth to children.

Women did a whole lot more than "give birth to children." Those children, by the way, worked the fields as well, both the boys and the girls, as did their mothers. It was not until after the fall of monarchies, and the rise of democracy, that women began to be stay-at-home moms, whos still today do a lot more than "give birth to children."

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: paulney

Think about it: in a peasant's family, a boy is an asset, while a girl is a liability. Therefore girl's parents were quite happy to move her off their hands. And since the other party was getting another mouth to feed, the girl had to earn her share of food. Men of the family worked in the field, while the girls... well, they gave birth to children.

Women did a whole lot more than "give brith to children." Those children, by the way, worked the fields as well, both the boys and the girls, as did their mothers. It was not until after the fall of monarchies, and the rise of democracy, that women began to be stay-at-home moms.

yeap. if you were healthy enough to work you worked. if you were not healthy enough you died.

of course there are exceptions/

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Simple yes/no.

For example 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl.

I am asking for a good reason.

No, It was never OK. It was done, and it was accepted. But that doesn't make it right.

Now please add some context to your question.

 

[Anubis]

1000 years? hell back in the 1800s girls were married and we giving birth as young teens in alot of europe

 

[engineereeyore]

Age difference I don't mind. 10 year old girl? I think that's a little young at any period of time.

 

[Braznor]

Perhaps it was common amongst common people, but Prophets should know better. You see, they were the most perfect of men and their timeless wisdom should tell them that's wrong.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: OsoVerde
In the middle ages, there were a lot of politically-minded arranged marriages for nobles and sometimes the girls would be little kids, but the boys would usually also be little kids in those cases.

Usually but not always. Marriages like that typically weren't consummated until the kids hit puberty though.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Excuse me while I grab my lawn chair, shades, and a beer.

Popcorn anyone?

If you know why I am asking and maybe you do, please don't mention it in this thread.

WTF?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
You all need to seperate "marriage" from "have sex with". It is entirely possible that people could marry children for purely political reasons.

Whether this is what Aimster is talking about, I do not know.

I believe that is correct. I was watching some show on the history channel...which I believe was discussing Indian arranged marriages, where the girl would move in with the husbands family and the marriage wouldn't be "consumated" until she was older. (presumably, menstrating) It said it was a difficult move for the girl since she was considered of very low status right after she mvoed in with the in-laws.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Aimster
Simple yes/no.

For example 40 year old man marrying a 10 year old girl.

I am asking for a good reason.

No, It was never OK. It was done, and it was accepted. But that doesn't make it right.

Now please add some context to your question.

actualy you are wrong it was ok. Also you have to remember that most people did nto live past 30. and it was something like 1 out of 3 kids died before they hit puberty.


But it was OK at the time. People change. what people think is OK is diffrent then was in that time.

 

[Braznor]

Is this related to the girl who was disturbing you while you were driving? Are you hinting at things to come?

 

[Strk]

Was it ok? Not in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen regularly. It's hardly old though. Charlie Chaplin was married four times and only one wife was over eighteen.

Hell, Romeo and Juliet is about a thirteen year old girl.

 

[uhohs]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
Why did you repeatedly bait people with "don't ask me why I want to know"? Do you want people to think you're a pedophile? That your roommate is? Did one of you get caught with kiddie porn on your computer or caught on one of those Dateline Predator shows?

o.o

 

[silverpig]

Uh, 1000 years ago there was no such thing as a 40 year old man. Okay, well there were, but there weren't many of them.