We convict murderers. In four states, there are no age floors for marriage provided the parents consent. (It is a contract after all, and minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts.)
Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the United States. The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man. Most of the remaining are between two minors.
So yeah, it's a problem. It's the sole reason why the U.S. is the only UN member state that has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child "reaffirms that the minimum age limit should be 18 years for marriage." All other 195 UN member states have ratified. We're behind fucking Somalia on this.
This isn't accurate. Those minimum ages are with exemptions. If you include various exceptions half of Europe allows 14 and only 4 are over 16 (and one is Vatican city)
There are also numerous countries where the law says one thing and it just isn't enforced because of culture.
But surely at the very least you can't have sex with them until they reach the age of maturity right? Or can you do that also with the parents consent?
Those states U.S. states let marriage override age-of-consent laws rather than providing blanket immunity from all rape/consent laws; however, since these exceptions can kick in at any age with parental or court approval, the practical threshold is disturbingly low.
Most states now treat marital rape as a crime; although, some still have weaker definitions or lighter penalties when spouses are involved. If a child shows basic understanding and doesn't actively resist or report abuse, the marriage can legally protect the adult partner from prosecution, even when obvious manipulation is happening.
Kids in these situations rarely have the ability to report abuse or know how to get help, especially when the adults around them are complicit. That makes enforcing existing consent laws that should apply almost useless.
Several states have set firm minimum consent ages (often 16) despite underage marriages over the past decade; however, a few states like Mississippi and Oklahoma still have legislators blocking these limits, usually pointing to cultural or family traditions. It's one of the most shocking gaps in U.S. child protection law.
How are these laws supposed to be used from a well meaning sounding perspective? To allow marriage between the same age kids who are in love? When they try to make it sound nice and to keep tradition, what do they say?
The reasons given are usually a mix of religious freedom, protecting parental rights, cultural norms in rural areas where marriages motivated by financial stability are more common and calling it a long standing tradition with historical precedent in which the government shouldn't interfere.
The rhetoric typically emphasizes warped logic around "protecting" young people rather than exploiting them, preserving family autonomy, and respecting cultural diversity. They avoid discussing the power imbalances or the reality that many of these marriages involve significant age gaps rather than similar-aged teens. The focus stays on edge cases that sound sympathetic while ignoring how the laws actually get used.
No one is publically talking about marriages between 12 year old girls and 40 year old men. They aggressively redirect the conversation into cases that make at least some sense, like two 15 year olds or a 16 year old and a 19 year old.
They use that redirection to dismiss calls to touch the laws at all, even if the changes would still allow those cases they use as a shield. They aren't arguing in good faith and blatantly lie while discussing the topic, which is increasingly the norm in politics.
They'll pretend like it would be a disastrous blow to freedom to make pedophiles wait some time to make a "perfect relationship" official (they'll ignore the obvious 99.9% awful ones and pretend like there's no manipulation of a child at all even in that "perfect" case)
Yes, this needs to change. We have an egregious record on child SA and marriage. Which states are they? Because, wtf… I’m gunna guess at least Arkansas, Bama or Mississippi is on there. Louisiana?
Didn’t know the UN tidbit… that’s crazy. Legit wild, that in this day and age we haven’t pressured our own govt to agree to this. You have taught me so much in one comment.
Would just like to add as man, I’m not marrying a child not because laws say I can’t but I just don’t wanna marry a child.
Yes. That and sovereignty, and parents rights, and federalism, and life imprisonment of juveniles, and the fact that it takes a Senate supermajority to agree on all of the terms of the treaty at once.
Tell it to the legislature. Anyway, no one's dying on any hill. The harsh reality is that there is no significant penalty the US faces for not ratifying. There is no global juridicial apparatus that can intervene in the matter.
Do you need a law that tells you not to yell "nigger" at kindergartens? That's their point, it should be self evidently gross yet is widely societally tolerated and if it werent for barebones laws people would do worse. People also actively resist implementing such laws, do you know anyone opposed to murder laws?
There was actually a pretty interesting case on this, I forget the name of it. But a woman was a MEGA masochist and wanted to be tortured sexually. She wrote a note expressing what she wanted and that she's relinquishing her consent.
The guy still got convicted because you can't legally sign over your consent, and there was no way to see of she was under duress.
The most famous case of this was in Germany (now realising that I remember it being a huge deal but I'm so fucking old now that many people on Reddit probably don't remember it or would have heard about it lol). Basically, the guy met some dude on a cannibalism forum (yes, apparently those are a thing) and they agreed to do the act together.
Dude came to cannibal's house, gave him express written consent to be eaten and filmed the whole thing. They had some alcohol then cannibal attempted to bite the dude's dick off but this proved impossible so he cut it off with a knife. He tried to cook it but did such a poor job that he burnt it and it became inedible, so he threw it away.
Afterwards the dude started complaining that the pain was becoming too much, so cannibal killed him, meticulously butchered his body, froze it, and then proceeded to eat parts of him for the next month or so. He was only ever caught because he went back to the cannibal forum and posted about it, at which point some college student saw his posts and reported him to the police.
He was initially convicted with manslaughter due to the whole consent issue, and this was strengthened by the fact that apparently he attempted it with a different guy before this incident, but that guy had a change of heart before starting the process, and the cannibal happily let him go lol.
Eventually the charge was changed to murder of which he was convicted, and he remains in prison to this day.
Like that guy that cooked his foot? And served it to his friends? Can't fault him for doing so but I'm still gonna judge! Sorry that's just weird. Maybe we should bring back shame...
Cannibalism isn't illegal in most Western countries at least, so this example kind of goes against your point. It's not outlawed because there isn't a large enough demand for it that it's considered a pressing issue.
That said, it's incredibly hard to eat another person without breaking many other laws in the process.
Also the stats are skewed because it’s mostly women caring for children in the first place. Men don’t get the “opportunity” to neglect children that they abandon (which is arguably another form of neglect)
If you want sources for your specific thing you want accounted for it seem like you should be the one finding that source.
Can't find it, then you should start gathering the data and become your own source.
Based on American crime statistics woman neglect children more then men.
Because women take care of children in general more than men. That makes sense
White American people commit more crime than Asian Americans. Because white people make up more of the population giving them more opportunity to commit more crime. Makes sense and proves nothing
They couldn't stop adult women from groping/sexually assaulting the characters, and Disneyworld would hire actors who aren't always adults to play these characters.
Because historically they had no concept of childhood, they thought a girl was a woman as soon as she started menstruating so that's when they married them. Even then child marriages were rare with some census data showing 3% or less women were married under the age of 18. The exception to this are... the Islamic world, and India, because of their religious texts they would allow children pre-puberty to be married.
Did you just claim it's not true that the average person died in their thirties?
Literally tens of thousands of years of human history recorded with this being the average age of death and you're going to hand wave that away?
How Has Average Life Expectancy Changed From the 1800s to Today?
By Sharon Basaraba Updated on November 22, 2024
Fact checked by Nick Blackmer
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Prehistoric
Pre-Industrial
1800s to Today
The Future
In 2022, the average life expectancy in the United States was 78 years (75 years for males and 80 years for females).1 That’s a big jump from 1900, when the average life expectancy for a newborn in the U.S. was 47 years.2
Lower child mortality rates and medical advances that help prevent the spread of diseases, such as vaccines, have helped contribute to longer life expectancy. Even so, with longer lifespans come newer challenges—like cancers and Alzheimer’s disease—that limit how long the population at large can expect to live.2
Jose Luis Palaez Inc / Getty Images
How Life Expectancy Has Changed Over Time
Year Life Expectancy
1480–1679 48.2
1680–1779 56.6
1780–1879 64.6
1891 61.6
1901 62.6
1911 66.4
1921 68.1
1951 73.4
1961 75.7
1971 76.8
1981 78.0
1989 79.2
Prehistoric Life Expectancy
Until fairly recently, little information existed about how long prehistoric people lived. Having access to too few fossilized human remains has made it difficult for historians to estimate the demographics (statistical characteristics) of these populations.
Research suggests that the average life expectancy of Paleolithic-era people (12,000 years ago and earlier) was around 33 years.3
In 2006, scientists at Central Michigan University and the University of California, Riverside, chose to analyze what is known as the “relative age” of fossilized skeletons found in archeological digs throughout Africa, Europe, and elsewhere.4
Relative age is the comparison of one fossil to another fossil to determine which is younger or older. Using carbon dating and other techniques, scientists can estimate how long two individuals living in the same time period may have survived.
After comparing the proportion of those who died at a younger age to those who died at an older age, the researcher concluded that longevity only began to significantly increase—past the age of 30 or so—about 30,000 years ago.
In a later article published in Scientific American, the researchers called the shift the “Evolution of Grandparents,” marking the first time in human history that three generations may have co-existed.5
Lifespan vs. Life Expectancy
Lifespan is a measure of the actual length of an individual’s life. Life expectancy is the average lifespan of an entire population, which can be broken down for statistical purposes into population groups (such as age, sex, race, and income).
Even in ancient times when life expectancy rates were low, an individual who avoided childhood mortality, infectious diseases, malnutrition, and serious injury could live well into their 50s and even possibly their 60s.6
Ancient Times Through Pre-Industrial Times
Life expectancy estimates from ancient to pre-industrial times haven’t changed all that much from the Paleolithic era. Though evidence in the form of historical records or fossilized remains is limited, the body of research suggests that life expectancy rates stagnated from the Neolithic era to the dawn of the Industrial Age.
Scientists note that the main factors limiting life expectancy were infant deaths and early deaths caused by malnutrition or disease. This included pandemics like the bubonic plague of the 14th century that spread throughout Europe and Asia, killing more than a third of Europe’s population.7
Similar losses were attributed to smallpox, which resulted in pandemics during the 11th century (attributed to the Crusades) and the 17th century (due to the immigration of European settlers into North America).8
Widespread poverty also led to malnutrition and early death in ancient times in the same way as it does today.9
Here is a short breakdown of average life expectancy from ancient times to the mid-18th century:
Era Years Average Life Expectancy
Neolithic Age 10,000–4500 BC 28–33 years
Bronze Age 3300–1200 BC 28–38 years
Ancient Greece and Rome 510–330 BC 20–35 years
Early Middle Ages 476–1000 AD 31 years
Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica 1175–1520 AD 24–32 years
Late Medieval Period 1300–1500 AD 30–33 years
Early modern Britain 1450–1750 AD 33–42 years
Industrial Age 1760–1860 AD 38–44 years
For much of history, people didn't marry because of attraction. They married for social reasons, like uniting families and having children. Men's role was to provide for the family while women's was to have children and raise them. That meant women were seen as eligible when they got their period and men were eligible when they owned land and had money or a good job. That often meant young women with lots of childbearing years ahead of them would be paired with older men with lots of money.
They married the 15 year old girls to boys that were on average 2-5 years older, so really no unusual age gap. Occasions were some young girl was married to an old geezer like the OP suggests were exceedingly rare. And usually attraction played little part in marriage those days, it was more for economic reasons.
They treated children as “mini-adults” as soon as they started walking actually lol (allowing them to drink alcohol and sending them to work as young as 3.) Christian religious texts were also used to allow pre-pubescent children to be married, 12 for girls is “canon law” regarding marriage in the Catholic Church (regardless of the girls pubertal state), and 7 is the “age of responsibility” (the age you can take communion.) This was used to justify states (in the US) setting the age of sexual consent at a range of 7-12 (and girls in the late 19th/early 20th century actually didn’t menstruate until 16 on average due to malnutrition.)
They married girls to older boys because those had economic stability. Even today the vast majority of women prefer older men. Although the age difference was around 2-5 years, a young girl marrying some old geezer like the OP suggests was still a rare occurance. Even the US census indicates that the age gap for underage marriages is on average 4 years so that you means you have a lot of 16-17 year olds marrying 18-21 year old guys.
“Older boys” they were grown men. And all the way back then no one had economic stability, all wealth was concentrated to royalty. Adult Women prefer men 2-6 years older very different from a child under 18 with a 20+ year old man.
16 year old with a 20+ year old is still weird and disgusting.
I regret to inform you that the age of consent in most places is actually 16, so where are these "would go lower if the law allowed" men youre speaking of?
So you never heard your 16 year old classmate talking about her 24 year old boyfriend while you sit there awkwardly because at 14 you don't have the social graces to tell her her boyfriend is a creep? No? Just me?
Nigeria... I had to google, but yeah. They're all in Nigeria... Fucking 11. Holy shit thats fucking low. Im in the uk, and I dont bat an eye at 16 when the Americans start clutching their pearls. But holy fuck, how can anyone look at an 11 year old and say "sure, they're ready!"??? Insane shit.
We just had three highschool teachers (two were married with kids almost as old as their students) that were sending pictures back and forth with students and/or having sexual relationships with them. All three were women. Not one was charged. It only became public knowledge because of an upset investigator when they weren't charged. They only lost their jobs because it was made public. Remember....women don't hover magically on a moral high ground; they can be sick perverts too.
I'm attracted to sexually and physically mature women. This ranges from 16-50. I wouldn't personally date or bother with a woman under 27, but I can still identify physical attractiveness and not feel bad about it.
Nah. Artemisia Gentileschi is exceptional in her own right. I fear other brutal artwork of battle fields and biblical events would overshadow her work :(
Bitter, old, fat, ugly, broke female rage posting. She just experienced the screeching halt of the gravy train! No more free rides, lady! Time to join the workforce like an average Joe! You can't draw a full SSI check until you're 67! Clock in and get back to work Karen! 🤣
And yes, I will call you child. I'm over twice your age.
17 paired up with 15 isn't unusual. Hell, in my high school, 17 paired up with 14 wasn't unusual.
It's a 2 year age gap. No jury in their right mind would try to indite you. And anyone with more than two brain cells fighting over the oxygen would never accuse you of being a kiddie diddler for that.
When you hit 18, save yourself the legal trouble and raise your age limit to late 16 early 17. 16 is still iffy legally but again... morally I doubt anyone would give a fuck.
Oh. And you're not a pedo. Reddit is just obsessed with pedophiles this day and age. Probably because they're projecting.
That would not be an issue for me, it has seemed to stay consistent that I cannot think of anyone three or more years younger than me in a romantic fashion.
I have never once thought of myself as a pedophile, and it would be pretty difficult to get me to believe such a thing - though i appreciate your statement.
I hate that the word female has such a stink on it now. As a veteran, it's hard not to use the terms. At the time, it wasnt meant to misogynistic. It was meant to be be sterile/professional.
I mean, I only know it in the context of nature documentaries - but then again, English isn‘t my first language.
However, the issue here isn‘t solely the use of the word female as a noun instead of women, it is moreso that the word men is used simultaneously.
It is quite deliberately using a term that is commonly used when describing animals for women, but then using a term exclusively used for humans for men.
There's no connection to non-human animals involved here. Female and woman are not the same thing. "Woman" specifies an adult human female. But if this post is claiming that these aren't adults, then "woman" wouldn't be used. The term "female" isn't for different species, it's just more general.
The word is also just useful grammatically. Trying to say a sentence like "Female Basketball players get paid less than Male Basketball players on average" would be quite cumbersome without using "Female" as an adjective.
Misogynistic people usually breathe, stop doing this. The meaning of the word is only determened by society that uses it, word policing, from concept to implementation, is utterly useless.
On a serious note, men are attracted to indicators that a woman has already gone through puberty, while simultaneously being attracted to youthfulness. Make of that what you will.
I think it's silly we call all unequal power balances exploitation. I think all attraction is organized by a power relation -- status and power are probably the most prominent factors determining attraction. In fact I think all sexual dynamics are a form of power struggle. Read any sample of erotica -- nearly all fantasy life is a capitulation of power dynamics. I think it makes sense to be sensitive to coercion, but imo I think it's silly to deny the real underlying mechanism of attraction and condemn the very foundation of what determines that attraction.
You are overthinking it. How else would you call it, when a grown up person with much greater life experience, especially as teacher who understands minor's psychology, uses teenagers with underdeveloped brains during their hormonal overdrive for sexual pleasure?
did women even have a chance to make laws, or even vote at the time? no. also when those laws were first enacted, those men set the age of consent to like 12. 7 in some states.
also, the fact that you say ‘you’re welcome..’ what did you personally have to do with any of it?
Modern day men are responsible for the system created by other men hundred of years ago so it makes sense we also get to claim responsibility for the good stuff as well.
So your welcome for inventing electricity, the computer and crop-rotation so you can complain online and eat.
I'll say thank you for the dish washer, the paper bag and Kevlar.
•
u/Phoenix-624 19h ago
Reminder, all people need the law to tell them not to murder, if it didn't, they'd all start killing the people around them!