Why was there a move against child marriages in recent times after being common throughout all of history?

Jesus what a qt.

...

Can you imagine introducing your teen wife to sex once she's able to?

...

If this kind of marriage wasn't that odd at the time, why bother photographing them so much?

James Alefantis fuck off

Okay that got my neurons firing I'll be honest. Maybe such marriages are not demonized ("literally Hitler") like it is now, but it is still frowned by society. Maybe she was still "too young" for that time.

Age difference itself wasn't a big deal, but when the difference of the wife drops so low to the age of nine, you will get attention even back then.

Correction:

Maybe such marriages WERE not demonized ("literally Hitler") like it is now, but it WAS still frowned by society.

Sorry for confusion

It was published quite a bit and resulted in butthurt feminists demanding that little girls could no longer consent to marriage.

Marriage of children below 13 was never popular but has been accepted in many parts of the world for years. Religions tended to impose different ages of marriage and when Christian Puritanism gained steam the minimum age of marriage was around 15

Now child marriage is defined as anything below 18

Tomorrow it will be anything under 25

Nice to know. Thank you

So it was butthurt old cunts all along? No one wants their stinking cooch and they wants to level the playing fields?

nah i think that is was most people view locking a developing child into a lifelong relationship with an adult as abusive

Because there was a huge cultural difference between urban, middle-class New York, and the rural poor of Tennessee.

>locking a developing child into a lifelong relationship
>lifelong relationship
see, this is the thing: back in the day a marriage really was for life. Divorce might not have been unheard of exactly, but it was next to impossible and you certainly didn't get married with the expectation that if you didn't like it you could get divorced.

Under those circumstances it might make sense to frown on child marriage. But that begs the question: what's the big deal with it now? Do we actually look down on child marriage now because its the modern, rational view, or are we really simply blindly carrying on a tradition that started back in the days when marriage meant something very different to what it does now?

Early feminists disliked marriage in general, viewing it as essentially slavery since being a wife carried with it the expectation of keeping the home, which to them made the woman essentially an unpaid domestic servant who couldn't leave. Of course, early feminists generally belonged to the extremely small class of women who had jobs available to them which meant that they didn't have to be dependent on a man's income, and hence didn't gain as much from offering domestic services in return for the man's financial support. Not to mention the fact that most early feminists would have grown up in households that had actual domestic servants, and hence probably wouldn't have been used to doing chores as children and would have viewed the good homemaker routine wives were expected to fall into as labour that was rather beneath them. Contrast this with a girl born in poverty in rural Tennessee, who would have been doing domestic chores since she was old enough to walk and desperately needed the income a husband could provide.

Really this article is an example of the exact same kind of ignorant New York cultural imperialism that has recently driven so many white, rural areas into the hands of Donald Trump. Since whoever wrote this article was living in a context where child marriage didn't make sense, they couldn't comprehend that this couple might be living in a situation where it did make sense. They just treated it as a freakshow they could amuse their Manhattanite friends with.

And again, are we carrying on the 1930s New Yorkers' distaste with child marriage because it's the rational thing to do, or because we're blindly following a tradition set down almost a century ago by these self-appointed cultural arbiters? Not only is marriage not necessarily for life these days, wives are no longer expected to fill the same domestic role that they had back in the 1930s.

Why is child marriage still banned these days, when the original reasons for banning it have long since evaporated?

Come to think of it, I can't stand people from New York. All they do is complain and drive poorly.

>I can't stand people from New York
No one can - not even other New Yorkers. Why do you think they're always so rude? Because the person they bump into on the street is probably another New Yorker (and also because New Yorkers are assholes).

Also, I've got another follow on point from . Back in the 1930s contraception was far less available that it is now, meaning that a girl who got married young would have got pregnant as soon as she entered puberty - which in the days before modern medicine could be quite dangerous. Of course these days we have both contraception and modern obstetrics, meaning that that needn't be an issue. Modern liberals love to criticise people who insist on abstinence before marriage as being behind the scientific times, yet they themselves unthinkingly hold onto their grandparents' opinions on child marriage, despite the fact that those opinions became traditions in an era before modern medicine rendered a lot of the practical concerns redundant.

because marriage (and sex) before a partner can give consent of their own free will is fucked up?

So on their 18th birthday, or whenever your AoC, they magically obtain the ability to give free will consent?

you have to draw the line somewhere, but do you really think a 9 year old is able to?

only liberals believe in consent

>Why do you think they're always so rude?
this is a common misconception, new yorker's aren't assholes. When we're walking down the street we don't give anyone else the time of day not out of rudeness but out of courtesy. I'm 100% focused on getting where I need to go and doing what I need to do, so I assume the other people on the street are as well and don't bother them. This extends further too, I remember once hearing a comedian tell a joke that when you're sitting on the subway the person sitting next to you might be on fire and you'd get mad at them because now you have to work harder to ignore them.

no, it is a legal line beyond which the government assumes a person is a fully functional human bean that is capable of understanding the ramifications of their decisions and are able to give consent.

now that liberals are dying off, can we start clubbing lolis and take them to our basements?

>All these fucking pedophiles in this thread

9 seems a bit young. Puberty maybe? I'm not even saying that pedos should have them wholesale, but that if there is indeed a real relationship..

>a legal line

Determined by?

>before a partner can give consent of their own free will
why can't a child give consent to marriage (and/or sex)? Children are routinely allowed to make major medical decisions if their parents and doctors believe they understand the issue, because ultimately it is their choice to make. Why shouldn't the principle of bodily autonomy extend to sexual encounters.

On the flip side, if you believe that children aren't capable of consenting, then consent must be exercised for them by an adult, in which case why shouldn't their parents be able to marry them off to someone if they believe that's best?

this there seems to be a troupé of pedophiles who shitpost on every board at about this time of day

>tfw she reminds me of my grandma when she was young
This does not feel good

Values and societies change over time and people have to live with it. People that can't bear it are criminals. Sorry to say but being a pedo nowadays is bad unless your a Muslim. If you want to be a pedo legally then convert to Islam. The only downside is you have to suicide bomb and kill a bunch of innocent civilians. Small price to pay for that underage pussy.

Is pedophilia just an inner desire to sully 'purity'?

Is anti-pedophilia a reflection of sexual neuroses - a reflection of the subconscious disgust and fear of sex?

By equating virginity with purity, and describing sexual contact as sullying that purity, aren't you essentially saying that sex is dirty and wrong? Ultimately, however much we like to pretend that western civilisation has largely freed itself of Christian dogma, the same subconscious loathing of sex still remains.

In fact, this is why distaste for pedophilia has increased so markedly in the past two or three decades: because as society has liberalised its attitude towards things like premarital sex and homosexuality, the only thing people have left to project their subconscious hated of sex onto is pedophilia.

No I'd say it's normal to not be attracted to an undeveloped adolescent who isn't in perfect shape for impregnation and a mental illness to be so

desire for sex when there isn't a possibility of making a child in such a way is a perversion

I didn't say pedophilia was normal. I just said that people's hatred of it is motivated largely by their own suppressed sexual neuroses.

Also, I point you to my earlier comment about homosexuality.

I think the "Age of consent" is really interesting because of how new the concept is. The ancients certainly did not know of it. I think, if we just go back 100 years, no one knew about an "Age of consent", as in, a certain age before which a person is unable to make conscious decisions.

homosexuality is a perversion as well, don't think they've come up with enough scanty evidence for the whole "born that way" shite

>people's hatred of it is motivated largely by their own suppressed sexual neuroses
or maybe they don't like their children and children in general getting fugged by fat hairy queers like the fags ITT, probably the same people advocating for little boy buggery a few weeks ago

>You will never read her bed time stories

:_;

Yeah. For context, the reaction at the time was 'lol, hillbillies.'

Welcome to Veeky Forums. If you want reddit opinions that conform with normative values I suggest you go to /pol/.

age of consent is a legal convenience, nothing more. It doesn't bear any particular relation to reality - there are 12 year olds around who are smarter than some eighteen year olds.

And because the age of consent doesn't really reflect actual differences in judgement very well, the people who like those laws set the way they are (e.g, at 18 rather than 13 for example) have become increasingly dogmatic about their insistence that consent is a black-and-white line. Same with rape in general - I doubt anyone here would say that simply being a little drunk invalidates a woman's consent, but for some parties that's an extremely convenient definition, and so they're trying to enforce that definition both legally and culturally.

And unfortunately, because the people pushing the concept of consent as a black-and-white, immutable thing have wormed their way into the media, and educational institutions, there are a lot of people who have been educated to believe that this extremely simplified (and sometimes just plain wrong) version of reality represents the truth.

Those of you reading this post might want to ask yourselves: am I one of those people? Did I ever make a conscious decision about what a sensible definition of consent is, or was I simply educated to think about it in a certain way?

He's right though. Many of these answers are textbook pedo apologist material.

What textbooks are you reading

Jesus Christ all the creepy ugly weeaboo pedophile omega males ITT

You have to go back to your containment board

>pedophilia is ok and if you don't agree you're fucked in the head
fuck off freud

I see the Uncomfortable Truthasaurus is busy today.

Yes.

t. Humbert Humbert

Because of consent.

You read those to your daughter not your wife.

>Determined by?
Did you not read the post

Just don't read anything paul wrote: exodus2thekingdom.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/did-johns-epistle-identify-paul-as-a-false-prophet/

youtube.com/watch?v=jWZ3EHjUx_E

No, and I don't think anyone who has children would go out clamoring for normalization of pedophilia.

ITS A CONSPIRACY

CHEMICALS IN THE WATER TURNING PEOPLE INTO CHILD MOLESTERS

I don't think most parents enjoy the idea of their child becoming a prostitute or just a plain cumdumpster skank

These aren't arguments to make it illegal

half your age plus 7 is a pretty good rule

I think you mean half your age minus 7

>tfw you will never marry your daughter

>5/6 years
kek, mate you don't understand

those are just averages. The legal minimum age for marriage in that period was 10.

>I hate New York City because I can't fuck nine year olds; go Trump!

This is a curious thread.

The idea of being taken advantage of when grown women let men take advantage of them all the time, its just women being stupid. Also the over protective father instinct.

t. woman

Most pedos are actually successful because you see a constant trope of most successful male and females being pedos like the Clintons for example.

Wasn't at least one early American political figure betrothed to a loli?

The problem with these discussions is that they are pointless. Nobody in their right mind will go to the congress of any country, say that the AoC should be abolished, and be taken seriously, not even if they are women, who are seen as more "moral" pedophiles.

The problem with concent from minors is that its still seen as wrong to teach underages sexuality, so in most cases where a kid where to have sex with someone older is that they barely know about it. You don't just give someone a rifle, send them to war and expect good results; maybe it'll turn alright, but the probability for that is low. It's even worse if they get the knowledge from informal source; It leads to STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

I'm against children having sex, but censoring sexuality from them is even worse. If they know what it is, they'll atleast know that they should say no if an older person wants to do... lewd stuff with them.

Progress is coming

2020 - first female president
2024 - first gay president
2028 - first bestiophile president
2032 - first pedosexual president

>The problem with these discussions is that they are pointless.
they aren't really pointless. The whole problem is that too many people are content in their ignorance. They never really think critically about issues like these and so they are happy supporting the status quo

Every time someone is forced to actually think about stuff like this seriously, instead of just going along with what they've always been told to believe by everyone else, is a victory. It may take even longer for attitudes regarding children and sexuality to change than it took for attitudes towards homosexuality to change, but ultimately the side only supported by complacent assumptions will give way eventually, if only you keep chipping away at it.

Implying that stops people. Read a news article that some little 11 year old child wife died of internal bleeding because her sand nigger husband fucked her to death.

>pedosexual
I've only heard actual child molestors say that. I hope it fades out soon.

Pedosexuality is more natural than homophilia

the only natural sexual conduct is mating for procreational purpoises. Everything else is just a mutation on human nature due to having a bigger frontal lobe.

>I've only heard actual child molestors say that
how many child molesters do you know?

>"summarising" things the MSNBC way
still haven't learned anything from Trump's victory, huh?

also
>implying you need to be a pedophile to hate NYC

muh time to find muhself

What's your point?

If you wouldn't have a 9 year old sign a legally-binding contract then why would you think they'd be ready for sex?
Like a contract, sex is an agreement that takes a significant amount of time to understand the meaning and possible consequences of.
In the case of child-marriage, the contract is very literal.

There is also plenty of evidence of child molestation being psychologically and physically harmful.
The man and child might look happy in the photo, but people always smile in photos, because that's what you're supposed to do in a photo.

There isn't even a truly practical reason to fuck a kid, as the main purpose of sex is procreation, and a child having a child has serious health complications for both.

A contract could be anything and could have drastic consequences.

Sex is just sex. It's not permenant.

It s only for elite

not that I like Hillary Clinton, but this pedophile shit is going to get real old, real fast.

>Tomorrow it will be anything under 25

What? If anything it would be lower as age limits for things have consistently moved down in the contemporary world. Voting age, age of consent, drinking age, etc in many countries.

>puberty

There isn't a clear line where puberty begins or ends, it is by definition a gradual process. You also have to consider that puberty begins sooner for females than males and that it begins sooner today than it did centuries ago (due to changes in diet and nutrition). It's not a hard and easily definable line unlike an age limit.

Obviously 18 is an arbitrary line but there has to be an arbitrary line drawn somewhere. Are the idiotic, irresponsible 18 year olds? Of course. Are there as many idiotic, irresponsible 18 year olds as there are 9 year olds? Not at all.

the age limit will not move, because liberals sanctify children, but the punishment from the liberals on the pedoes will be lowered

You didn't consider what the poster you replied to said considering the psychological damages that could be done. Physical damage could be done as well. Children also have less life experience and are more succeptible to being tricked or abused by adults, especially adults who are only having sex with them for pleasure.

>ywn have a loli waifu
I'm so jealous.

choosing a school is an extremely important decision as well, one that has a far wider effect on someone's life than the decision about whether to have sex or not. And yet we let parents choose whether to sent their kids to public school, private school, home school them, etc, etc.

Also, medical treatment (see )

Adults make major decisions about children's lives all the time, so why shouldn't we allow parents to marry off their children too?

>still haven't learned anything from Trump's victory, huh?

You're telling me the lesson is there are more child molestors than we thought?

Sheesh, you've got some good points there.

Because as population density increased there was less incentive to have children

Just because pedophilia/hebophilia were common in other cultures, that doesn't make it less disgusting. And I'll be honest here, I'm attracted to women, but also younger boys. Still, I know it's something that I cannot and will not do, even if society tells me it's okay. Kids that young may be learning about sex on the internet, but they're not physically or emotionally developed enough to cope with actual sex.

I like young boys, but I would never do anything to harm a kid. It's one of the few things that really gets to me. Hearing about children being hurt or dying is enough to make me feel sick to my stomach. There's no excuse for hurting a child.

>There's no excuse for hurting a child.
>having sex with a child = hurting them

see

I'm not physically or emotionally developed enough to get a job and I'm 23 years old

>having sex with a child = hurting them

Yes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#effects

>having sex
>sexual abuse
Not the same thing.

It literally is by definition.