I've been beating my drum about Lysander Spooner in another topic. For this, I make no arguments concerning vice, specifically. But I've come across literally, an historical footnote which has blown my mind in a context not quite related to the Liberty and Vice thread.

From Chapter 19 of Vices are Not Crimes, by Lysander Spooner, 1875. Italics reflect my printed copy, obtained at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/vices.htm ... boldface accents are of my discretion:


To have carnal knowledge of a woman, against her will, is the highest crime, next to murder, that can be committed against her. But to have carnal knowledge of her, with her consent, is no crime; but at most, a vice. And it is usually holden that a female child, of no more than ten years of age, has such reasonable discretion that her consent, even though procured by rewards, or promises of reward, is suficient to convert the act, which would otherwise be a high crime, into a simple act of vice.(2)


Okay, footnote 2 reads:



(2) The statute book of Massachusetts makes ten years the age at which a female child is supposed to have discretion enough to part with her virtue. But the same statute book holds that no person, man or woman, of any age, or any degree of wisdom or experience, has discretion enough to be trusted to buy and drink a glass of spirits, on his or her own judgement! What an illustration of the legislative wisdom of Massachusetts!


Often, modernity is noted to have a liberalizing effect on society. Given that the age of consent in the US now typically ranges between 14-16 years old, I'm left with my jaw open. I'm considering a couple of things here: life expectancy in 1875, and reproductive need. When I was in school, first menstruations seemed to be common around 11-13. I've actually always learned that that the onset of menstruation (I know there's a word for it :confused: ) has been advancing, coming younger, during the few generations we've really paid that kind of attention to. Thus, I'm left wondering about the reproductive capabilities of a 10-year old girl in 1875.

I would wonder if I'm being extremely Victorian here, but I'm afraid to research Victorian sexual consent, now.

Um ... hello? Could anyone please throw me a bone here so I could get some perspective on this? Or is this one of those things that will have little redeeming value at all when we figure it out?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

It was a different time period than ours obviously where morality and yes mortality were quite different. One must remember that those were the days when the "child" that was old enough to walk and talk was old enough to work. Common occupations for children were oilers for factory machinery and the famous chimney sweeps of old, both jobs being considered suitable for children because of their appropriate size and nimbleness for the tasks at hand. As for mortality, life expectancy was shorter for a number of reasons i.e. medical knowledge, working conditions, living conditions, etc., weren't the best although they were improving. The age of consent and marriage was much lower than today perhaps because of this, but more likely because of the mores handed down from previous generations. "Young" marriages were hardly peculiar to the Victorian time period, rather every time period previous had a similar view of it. The age of consent, marital and otherwise, only seems to have gone up only quite recently on the historical scale.

Peter D--

Thank you kindly; I was wondering if you could help me resolve one part of the issue:


The age of consent and marriage was much lower than today perhaps because of this, but more likely because of the mores handed down from previous generations. "Young" marriages were hardly peculiar to the Victorian time period, rather every time period previous had a similar view of it. The age of consent, marital and otherwise, only seems to have gone up only quite recently on the historical scale.

What I'm wondering is whether the young marriages had a biological purpose, or if it was just to satisfy the needs of men?

I understand the life expectancy issues, but I'm still wondering about the reproductive viability of a 10 y/o female.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Well, in due time once the marriage has been consummated there tends to be a biological result given the female and male are indeed both able. The interesting thing about marriages of old, not all of course, was that the females were as you have pointed out quite young; the same wasn't always the case with the males, sometimes they were old indeed to the point of having one foot in the grave. One does wonder if the biological aspect was being put aside in favor of something more immediately agreeable to the groom in such instances. Still, I'm sure that there were probably economic considerations as well determining many a marriage. I pity the man who had many daughters and wasn't "to the manor born," dowries aren't something one hears too much of nowadays. Of course, marriages tended to stay within the social class lines more so then than now. Still, if one is brought up in a society where the age of consent is whatever 10yrs or 100yrs for that matter, I imagine that they will marry according to what the norm or mores are regardless of whether there is a biological advantage or not, albeit the time for procreation falls between those two extremes obviously lest the society continue to exist.

[QUOTE=Tiassa;26069]I've been beating my drum about Lysander Spooner in another topic. For this, I make no arguments concerning vice, specifically. But I've come across literally, an historical footnote which has blown my mind in a context not quite related to the Liberty and Vice thread.

From Chapter 19 of Vices are Not Crimes, by Lysander Spooner, 1875. Italics reflect my printed copy, obtained at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/vices.htm ... boldface accents are of my discretion:



Okay, footnote 2 reads:

O.K. so we are talking about morals today . Let us Raise Lazarus out of de grave . So how does this tie in with abortion . Go figure. There use to be 10 year old children doing the act legally . At least the nastiest of bikers have the saying , Old enough to bleed old enough to bread . What was it ? In Vermont even 15 years ago the age of consent was 14 or 13 I believe . So lets talk about what morality really is ? Scientifically that is?

i dont know the acuracy of this artical
http://www.representingchildhood.pitt.edu/medieval_child.htm

But it seems to indicate that pubity in the middle ages was 12 (for girls) and that marriage was set acordingly.

This might have something to do with that law however



Table 2: Life Expectancy at Birth in the United States

Year
Life Expectancy

1850-38.3
1860-41.8
1870-44.0
1880-39.4
1890-45.2
1900-47.8
1910-53.1
1920-54.1
1930-59.7
1940-62.9
1950-68.2
1960-69.7
1970-70.8
1980-73.7
1990-75.4
1998-76.7
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us



Also if you look at the rates of children per women (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography cant copy this table sorry, your going to have to scroll down to table 1 yourself)

the rate in 1800 was 1342 per 1000 women
Compare that to 2000 where the rate is 343 per 1000 women.

If you want to look at 1870 (only posting the "white" rates because i suspect thats what tiassa's intrested in) specifically then we have a birth rate of 38.3 per 1000 pop annual a women to child ratio of 814, a fertility rate of 4.55 per women, a life expectancy of 45.2 and an infant mortality rate of 175.5 (per 1000 live births, compared to 5.7 in 2000)

Far from being " if it was just to satisfy the needs of men?" i would suggest that it was a need to get children out of the house before there parents died. After all if you take 10 (predicted start of fertility) away from 45.2 you get 35.2. You then take 8 (plus 1 for the year it takes to actually grow inside mother) away from that your left with 26.2 years and thats assuming that you fall pregant the second you start menstration and that the girl is married on her 8th birthday. 26 years to have all your 5 children and be grandparents and what not.

I suggest its a slight bigotry on your part to judge the laws from OUR perspective

The onset of menstruation during female puberty is called menarche.

Puberty and menarche are apparently occuring in human females at younger ages, on average, than 100 years ago. I don't know if there is any good explanation for this, but if it's evolutionary, it suggests that we are evolving into a species who can reproduce by finding a fertile partner more easily (except for social restrictions) than 100 years ago.

The onset of menstruation during female puberty is called menarche.

Puberty and menarche are apparently occuring in human females at younger ages, on average, than 100 years ago. I don't know if there is any good explanation for this, but if it's evolutionary, it suggests that we are evolving into a species who can reproduce by finding a fertile partner more easily (except for social restrictions) than 100 years ago.

interesting interpritation, what i had herd was that on the plus its because of better nutriction (because if you look at models and gymnists who stave themselves there periods start alot latter if at all and are quite irregular) and because of the amount of artifical hormones in the food surplie.

the rate in 1800 was 1342 per 1000 women
Compare that to 2000 where the rate is 343 per 1000 women.

i just checked my CIA factbook on this.
it gives a world birth rate of 20.18 live births per 1000 people.
2008 estimate.
-CIA factbook

i just checked my CIA factbook on this.
it gives a world birth rate of 20.18 live births per 1000 people.
2008 estimate.
-CIA factbook

so?

If your saying my figures are wrong 1) the figure you quoted was the year 2000 and yours is 2008

2) the CIA rate your quoting is live births per 1000 population where as the one you quoted of mine was not in rates per population

edit and 3) i think it was for the US, not world wide

edit 2 and even then its only WHITE people in the US

Mikey, did you really dig up an 11-year old thread???

http://mamikaze.com/wp-content/uploads/zombie-child-caption-250x300.jpg?9d7bd4

How inappropriate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12291790

The author presents an overview of long-term trends in U.S. nuptiality. "Marriage in colonial North America was notable for being early (for women) and marked by low percentages never marrying....

Apparently, though, in New England they were slow to tie the knot:
http://www.austincc.edu/jdikes/Marriage%20Ways%20ALL.pdf

Is EVERY thread here old?

edit and 3) i think it was for the US, not world wide
the figures i posted was for the world, and for each 1000 people


edit 2 and even then its only WHITE people in the US
?????
well, what have we here?
i've screwed my fair share of black women, we is not all white over here.

the figures i posted was for the world, and for each 1000 people


?????
well, what have we here?
i've screwed my fair share of black women, we is not all white over here.

those were the statistics i found, dont blame me, further more the interesting thing wasnt the 2000 vs 2008, it was the 2000 vs 1870 which is what the origional thread was about.

However as this is an old thread this is the last post i will be posting

edit and 3) i think it was for the US, not world wide

US birth rate per 1000 people:
14.18 live births 2008 est.
-CIA factbook

wow 11 years... that has to be record? Shit, 2 years older than Mohammad's wife Ashia :p

Tiassi is always bring up the Man slung out on the 10 year old so I went to the source so to speak. Awake and live Lazarus. The point is law changes with the times . Abortion is legal for a reason . That is my point in this resurrection. Life unfolds predictably in set mind set patterning . Sign of the times so to speak . Abortion is legal and will continue to be legal for quite some time to come and you Christians are wasting you time and energy fighting it . When it turns around all the things you are doing will of had no effect cause it will turn based on the events of the day and not by any moral stance . If people can do it they will . I don't know why that is so hard to understand . That all ties in nicely with smart growth tom foolery . Course that is different subject all together

Later got to go. Records are meant to be broken