Nothing wrong with 20-year-old men marrying 15-year-old women; it’s what our forebears did

27 May
Arguments about age-of-consent laws are always framed explicitly in terms of age of sexual consent and not age of marriage. In a sane world, we would frame as age of marriage, and allow as early as the Christianized Romans did.

Posted by on May 27, 2022 in culture, law, religion, spirituality, Theology


13 responses to “Nothing wrong with 20-year-old men marrying 15-year-old women; it’s what our forebears did

  1. fuzziewuzziebear

    May 27, 2022 at 12:20 am

    There is one thing that we need to consider and it is not small. In times past with younger ages of consent, there was a lot of death in childbirth. A feminist pointed out to me that this was much more likely if the woman was under eighteen. I conceded to her point. Women should have every advantage before they give birth.

    • Will S.

      May 27, 2022 at 12:22 am

      Sure, but it was better anyway for society to have children when women at most fertile and men at their most easily sire-able.

      We should return to encouraging that, today.

      • fuzziewuzziebear

        May 27, 2022 at 12:32 am

        Getting the men to cooperate is not a problem.The problem is that women see that they are advantaged by the present status quo. They might listen politely, but it will be in one ear and out the other. Until women see the folly of their choice, we are stuck.

      • electricangel

        May 27, 2022 at 10:34 am

        A woman stores up essential fatty acids in her body, Will, to put into the brains of her developing children. These fatty acids are critical in intelligence. A woman only has a complete store at the age of 24 or so. So children born when a mother is 15 are likely lower in intelligence than 24, all else being equal.

        Part of delaying childbirth to the 20s is driven by the need for better-nourished brains as the value of intellectual work rises higher. Sadly, we’ve gone to the other extreme, where intelligence in women (but not men) is NEGATIVELY correlated with fertility. They spend 4 years college, three years law school, six year pursuing partner, and then they’re 32 with shriveling eggs.

      • info

        May 27, 2022 at 10:14 pm

        @Electric Angel

        Really? Where can I read about this?

      • info

        May 27, 2022 at 10:17 pm

        @electric angel

        This evolutionary biologist also notices that fact of more intelligent women not reproducing:

        I think there will evolve ways to protect intelligence as it is inactivated in women compared to Men.

    • info

      May 27, 2022 at 12:48 am

      “A feminist pointed out to me that this was much more likely if the woman was under eighteen. ”

      It think that statistic is also due to lumping in births under 14-15 alongside malnutrition, poorer hygiene among the poor. And poor medical practices like doctors not washing their hands:

      That malnutrition did get resolved with the introduction of potatoes:

      Click to access nunn_qian_qje_2011.pdf

      I think that’s also why in the Medieval Era the age of co-habitation by the Catholic Church is 14:

      That is along the lack of good medicine in general in the past.

      • Will S.

        May 27, 2022 at 11:52 am


  2. dave snope

    May 27, 2022 at 9:27 am

    My grandma was 15 and grandpa was 21 when they married. They stayed married till they died, 73 years.

    • awildgoose

      May 27, 2022 at 10:21 am

      It is almost as if all those civilizations that prized virgin brides were on to something…

      • electricangel

        May 27, 2022 at 10:36 am

        Lifelong pair bonding benefits MEN and women. But not aloof asshole alphas, who are denied the sea of female flesh. They make too many alpha widows who are pair-bonded to them for life, though married to other men.

      • info

        May 27, 2022 at 11:14 am


        Agreed. This is why in comparison to today formalized polygyny in the past was a step up morally and spiritual speaking.

        With monogamy being God’s standard. The Song of Songs even in the Old Testament featured a deep monogamous Romance between Man and Woman.

        God only allowed that Romance to remain in the Old Testament because that was the wife God wanted for Solomon compared to the myriad of other women in this harem.

        In addition to the Spiritual meaning the sexuality isn’t a coincidence either. Interpreting the Song of Solomon only spiritually even led to strange interpretations like some commentator’s saying that the woman’s 2 breasts being the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Nope there’s definitely 2 layers of meaning. Of spiritual and physical. Body and Spirit.

        Doesn’t quite work with polygyny where it got to the point that the Kings and some nobles didn’t even know their concubine’s names or even cohabitate with the women they are supposedly married to in the harem.

    • Will S.

      May 27, 2022 at 11:52 am

      Wonderful, Dave!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: