I keep hearing sexual majority was fluctuant threw History...

I keep hearing sexual majority was fluctuant threw History. We use to believe having periods was the "legal" age for sex but during some centuries, having a 12yo wife was unimaginable even for a king ( king John was mocked a lot for this very reasons) and we are getting the idea things wasn't si different and sex with kids wasn't the norm.

But rape was. During antic or medieval wars, rape was everywhere and genetic pools were heavily modified by this. Now don't tell me when warriors were raiding a village they would rape the mature women and wait in lines for their turn while the young preteen girls just watch

Other urls found in this thread:

breakthrough.tv/earlymarriage/2013/10/mahatma-gandhi-early-marriage/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I have no idea what you are talking about specifically. This is obviously just an excuse to push your whacky pedo ideology and you are too mentally ill to construct an argumet. Get help so you don't waste your only life.

Early marriage was more usual in the upper classes and especially royalty.

This is because marriage was all about property and alliances. The age of the bride and groom didn't matter.

Humans naturally look for paedomorphic features in their notion of beauty. Our adults have facial structures with the least difference from child ones.

Humans can have excessive desire for such features down to desiring children themselves.

The mistake of pedophiles is to assume that their excessive desire is an argument for legalization, onto itself. It doesn't make them more noble. And the justifications given are tone deaf to the natural desire of parents to keep their children away from the predations of men.

Which leads me to another thing. Fucking humans, normies and bots, have to feel "good" about everything they do. There's no admission of sexual desire and release. It's always in these retarded parameters that have nothing to do with the struggles of real life.

OK but here we want to talk about sex, not mariage.

If a woman was raped she had to marry her rapist or else the family lost their investment.

Bullshit, during wars you won't find the soldier who raped your daughter

During wars entire populations were killed and enslaved to avoid that kind of retribution.

>There's no admission of sexual desire and release.

What do you mean by this? (no OP)

Early marriage was usual outside of nobility as well, the difference is hard to discern. For one as soon as a girl had periods, she was recommended to be married in many ancient societies. Further, families would seek to reaffirm both intra and inter family, clan and tribal relations by marrying off their sons and daughters. Arranged marriages to reinforce relationships between groups doesn't just exist in royalty but also at the local level.

Contrary to what pedo propagandists claim the average person married in their early 20's

Weird shit like teenage and childhood marriage was mostly a nobility custom

Much as I wish that I had not to write this chapter, I know that I shall have to swallow many such bitter draughts in the course of this narrative. And I cannot do otherwise, if I claim to be a worshipper of Truth. It is my painful duty to have to record here my marriage at the age of thirteen. As I see the youngsters of the same age about me who are under my care, and think of my own marriage, I am inclined to pity myself and to congratulate them on having escaped my lot. I can see no moral argument in support of such a preposterously early marriage.
Let the reader make no mistake. I was married, not betrothed. For in Kathiawad there are two distinct rites – betrothal and marriage. Betrothal is a preliminary promise on the part of the parents of the boy and the girl to join them in marriage, and it is not inviolable. The death of the boy entails no widowhood on the girl. It is an agreement purely between the parents, and the children have no concern with it. Often they are not even informed of it. It appears that I was betrothed thrice, though without my knowledge. I was told that two girls chosen for me had died in turn, and therefore I infer that I was betrothed three times. I have a faint recollection, however, that the third betrothal took place in my seventh year. But I do not recollect having been informed about it. In the present chapter I am talking about my marriage, of which I have the clearest recollection.

Read the entire chapter here.
breakthrough.tv/earlymarriage/2013/10/mahatma-gandhi-early-marriage/

Even though Gandhiji had an early marriage, he was extremely critical of the phenomenon. In his autobiography he mentions how he blamed his father for marrying him off when he was just a teen.

But that's mariage, what was the views about sex ? Did we use to burn people for buggering girls a bit too young ? Sounds odd people then would care about that.

Trying to portray the desire to fuck a child in gobbledegook speak. The refusal to even consider the legitimate concerns of parents.

Instead it's portrayed as an almost magical relationship where the child has equal agency in choosing the forms "companionship" takes on in relation to adult.

The whole paedomorphic thing is enough justification for having a desire.

To justify fucking a child...ha ha ha. That's not something to "justify". That's the right of one's own desire to one's own self. Just be aware that predation on children exposes oneself to the wrath of higher orders of predators.

It was marriage or prostitution as a purely economic matter.

>It's always in these retarded parameters that have nothing to do with the struggles of real life.
Pleasures are often seen by the general public as the result of struggles or as a goal where the struggle is an obstacle that is encountered.

That's blatantly false when it comes to prehistory and many societies of the ancient world. Not all times had the same average age of marriage.

>Weird shit like teenage and childhood marriage was mostly a nobility custom
Oh really?

"Historically, the age of consent for a sexual union was determined by tribal custom, or was a matter for families to decide. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty: such as menstruation for a girl and pubic hair for a boy.[1]"

"In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

The thing in ancient history is that the age of marriage wasn't recorded because quite frankly they didn't care. There wasn't a single number people today are obsessed about (21, 18 or 16). The age was beginning puberty, not a specific number. The age that was specific was in case of Rome for example, the age where parent consent was not necessary.

A 12 year old girl was very much considered a woman in most of those societies. This isn't pro-pedophilia propaganda. And that's not even good for pro pedophilia propaganda since most of society behaves with the "currently year" mentality and loves to appeal to modernity. Or else slavery and beheadings wouldn't look so bad.

>Pleasures are often seen by the general public as the result of struggles or as a goal where the struggle is an obstacle that is encountered.

That's not quite the point I was aiming at. It's the difference between a dude, who reaches the peak and feels alive in the cold looking down from the mountain, and a chick who does the same and then posting about it in facebook as a stupid feel good narrative.

There's no room for an honest expression of desire when the claws of social morality possess a person.

Guys show off their achievements on facebook as well. They tell their sexual conquests to their friends and make sure everyone is aware.


>There's no room for an honest expression of desire when the claws of social morality possess a person.
What is "social morality"? All of morality relates to what can be interpersonal (i.e the social).

And there doesn't seem a connection between honest expression of desires, social morality and what you wrote before. I don't think I'm the only one here who doesn't get what you're trying to say.

>testimony from that asshole of Gandhi

Throughout history, across all different cultures, the overwhelming majority of sexual patterns went like this

If you grew up in a rural area with limited human contact, you got married between the ages of 16 to 19 to a girl in your peer group and because it happened when the both of you were so young there was a strong chance of her still being a virgin, given her limited human contact. So yes, girls ages 14 to 17 were getting married more often in the past, but it wasn't to some slovenly creepy NEET in his 30's, it was to a 19 year old who was set to inherit his family farm who had known her for their entire lives and goes to the same church because that was their village's only social scene

If you grew up in a cosmopolitan area surrounded by people, you got married between the ages of 26 to 29 after about a period of experimentation, with both genders averaging about 8 partners in their lifetime. As the world reaches developed status, this becomes the norm

The reason was primarily material: more hands on the farm means more income, so there's a financial incentive for them to start cranking out babies right away, and could have had up to a dozen children over the course of their lives.

In cosmopolitan areas children have to be bread for employment or they'll end up impoverished and desperate, so each child is a considerable investment of resources, requiring many years of apprenticing before they could be considered working proficient in their trade. So people who live in urban or suburban areas tend to only have 2 or 3 children and families tend to be older, with more adults supporting fewer children,

Trying to make cosmopolitan people have lots of babies like people do in small towns is a recipe for creating an underclass of impoverished, revolutionary street rats

Royal and aristocratic marriages were exceptions to the rule because those marriages were primarily political and economic alliances. Rape is a different animal, altogether.

>If you grew up in a rural area with limited human contact, you got married between the ages of 16 to 19 to a girl in your peer group and because it happened when the both of you were so young there was a strong chance of her still being a virgin, given her limited human contact. So yes, girls ages 14 to 17 were getting married more often in the past, but it wasn't to some slovenly creepy NEET in his 30's, it was to a 19 year old who was set to inherit his family farm who had known her for their entire lives and goes to the same church because that was their village's only social scene
>Throughout history, across all different cultures, the overwhelming majority of sexual patterns went like this

You're talking out of your ass. You have no evidence that is was common in ancient history for over 5000 years. You're just projecting your modern mentality of your society onto many times to lessen cognitive dissonance.

Leading to class stratification based on sexual selection, nobles worked with the church to dominate the masses.

>Guys show off their achievements on facebook as well. They tell their sexual conquests to their friends and make sure everyone is aware.

Women do stuff because their desire is social recognition and validation. The act does not give as much pleasure as the social reaction to the act.

Men like social attention as well but they are capable of intensely private moments that feel better than praise.

But remember, you're talking to someone who sees most people as faggots and the NPCs of the world.

>What is "social morality"?

Probably an overly broad term but that complex of extroverted shoulds and shouldn'ts that regard verbalized judgments of human behavior.

"You should treat people nice."
"Everyone should to feel happy."
"Don't be biased"
"Sex should be blah blah blah"

Where desire has to conform to external control at all times. I get Nietzsche's point about illusions and yadda yadda but most of the "illusions" modern people make nowadays are ugly and misshapen. I would rather walk in the desert than see an oasis of neon.

Something where a person has desire "fuck children" and he manipulates the complex to create an abortion of language that sounds like a preschool brochure.

Assisted by modern technology. Now you can hear the screech anywhere.

Bull


Fucking

Shit

Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (Lex Julia de adulteriis).

To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate. Augustus instituted the "Law of the three sons" which held those in high regard who produced three male[2] offspring. Marrying-age celibates and young widows who wouldn't marry were prohibited from receiving inheritances and from attending public games.

>You have no evidence that is was common in ancient history for over 5000 years.
Just like you don't have any evidence that pedobears frolicked freely in the past with their eternal qt3.14's before all those mean old feminists came along and murdered fun and decency.

Of course for ancient history we can only extrapolate because the only people writing shit down were wealthy aristocrats and scribes who didn't have much to say about the common rabble, but for all of the parts of history that are well recorded a consistent pattern emerges: people who live in developing areas have more children, people who live in cities or developed areas have fewer children.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

t. triggered pedobear

>hurr durr 1955 to 1960 is the same as the ancient world

You're quite dumb.

>people who live in developing areas have more children, people who live in cities or developed areas have fewer children.

This has nothing to do with age of marriage.

>Just like you don't have any evidence that pedobears frolicked freely in the past with their eternal qt3.14's
I'm not claiming that. See Heck, fucking hunter gathering tribes recorded in contemporary times have a pretty low age of marriage (pretty much onset of puberty). This is indication of behavior of prehistoric past. Plus the many writings about law and customs indicates that early civilization wasn't that much different when it comes to age of marriage.

If you're having massive cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. Anyway, the past having low marriage age doesn't matter for liberal mentality of today since it's based on appeal to the current year. The fact that 12 year old girls could be enjoyed by a 40 year old in many ancient societies is not something that's going to convince people who appeal to novelty (or in this case modernity).

Why are you concerning yourself with puberty?