Underage married girls (and its almost always only girls) are at much higher risk of domestic abuse, being trapped in a marriage and of not completing their education. Parental support for the marriage is almost no protection, and in fact often helps to trap the girl in an abusive situation. I am at a loss at how society believes a minor is incapable of agreeing to have sex, but is capable of agreeing to enter into a marriage.
Or, for that matter, that said minor is deemed incapable of voting, drinking alcohol, joining the military, driving (if they are under 16), or entering into pretty much any other legal contract.
My brother told me about a 40-something year old guy in Illinois who got in trouble. He had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend…age of consent is 17, so that was ok. But he also recorded it on his phone and sent it to friends. That qualified as child pornography, it seems.
Great point.
I thought back in the old days (like, Colonial America) it wasn’t uncommon for girls to marry very young. If their life expectancy was 35 or 40, that would push all the time tables forward. But I also suspect girls/women weren’t valued nearly as much as today.
Consulting Wikipedia:
The minimum marriage age was 12 years for females and 14 years for males under English civil law until 1753. By default, these provisions became the minimum marriage ages in colonial America. [1]
and
In Delaware, the age of consent was 10 years until 1871 when it was lowered to 7 years. Under the 1871 law, the penalty for sex with a girl below the age of consent was death.[7]
In 1880, 37 states set the age of consent at 10 years, 10 states set an age of consent at 12 years, and Delaware had an age of consent of 7 years.[13][14][15]
In California, early statutes forbid sexual intercourse with females under the age of 10,[16] following the English statute of 1576. In 1889, the California statute was amended to raise the age to 14 years[17] and the age was raised to 16 in 1897.[18][12]
My first sexual experience was when I was 17 and my boyfriend was 18. We were in California, and we were aware that it constituted statutory rape under the law. I thought that was stupid then, and the intervening 21 years have done nothing to change my opinion.
If I were in charge, the age of consent would still be 18, but there would be an exception that made it not a crime if the parties were no more than 3 years apart, and would reduce it to a misdemeanor if they were 3 to 5 years apart. I would not allow anyone under 18 to marry, parental consent or no.
And as long as I’m in charge of these things, I would legalize all forms of sex work but only for those over 21. Eighteen-year-olds should not be strippers or porn stars, IMO. That said, I would not allow the underage victims to be prosecuted for violating that law. And I would throw an entire library at distributors of revenge porn.
This is a really important point. Much of this discussion revolves around rigid moralising and stiff necked insistence on the need to enforce certain rules, without apparent consideration of what harm has (or has not) been done and what harm will be done by punishing people for doing something in which (a) no one got hurt and (b) no one involved is complaining.
A couple of teens who have consensual sex are almost certainly going to be fine. This is improved by prosecuting them as criminals and wrecking their lives how?
Lack of willing witnesses, mostly. That’s a key point concerning the OP itself also.
Assuming the happy couple were not exhibitionistic (or, not exhibitionistic in front of anyone willing to betray them) there is close to zero chance the prosecutor can put a “beyond reasonable doubt” case together.
One of the reasons these ancient 60’s/70’s groupies cases are never going to get prosecuted is that the groupies have not changed their minds about whether they are happy about what they did. They aren’t going to help police prosecute.
No, it means that a lot of them weren’t even reaching marriageable age at all. Anyone who was getting married back then could expect to live into their 70s.
“Significant subset” does not mean “all”?
Hmm. So your position is that the average in this case is a mean, and therefore with higher infant mortality and more women dying in childbirth or whatever, that brings the average down…if you escaped those things you would live to be in your 70s? Do you have a cite?
In those pre-germ theory, pre-antibiotic days I would think they dropped earlier.
I did a little looking and found this
- 1650-1700 | Life expectancy: 41 years
- 1700-1745 | Life expectancy: 43 years
and
Flash forward to 1973: global life expectancy at birth is now 60 years, and child mortality is down to 13.7%.
Jump to the year 2001, and life expectancy reaches 66.6 years, while child mortality drops to 7.4%.
Yes that is correct. Your cite mentions this issue but does not really delve into it quantitively. And the figures you cite for 1973 and 2001 are global so don’t really have much to do with the first world experience.
Your own cite says “As recently as 1800, 43% of newborns globally died in their first five years of life” and that the life expectancy 1700-1745 was 43 years.
If 43% of people live to less than 5 (say 2.5 yrs average) and the average life expectancy is 43 years, that is compatible with the remaining 57% living to 73 yrs.
Now of course that isn’t completely accurate because some people would actually die younger and some older. But it is, ballpark, as Chronos said.
AIUI some say that there are three worlds. You could be aligned with USA and its allies, or you could be allied with the USSR and its allies. Not aligned with either? You’re third world. There are countries like Austria and Switzerland that qualify a.s third world countries if that’s your yardstick.
I’m sure you know what I mean. Substitute “developed world” if you are feeling nitpicky. Is your post really assisting the substantive discussion?
Yeah, it’s a huge pet peeve of mine that life expectancies are so skewed by child morality rates. But if you survived infancy - or childbirth - you could reasonably live to be a grandparent at any time in American history and probably long before that pretty much any place in the world. Which is exactly what lobotomyboy63’s cite explicitly says.
As for marriage as the best solution for young pregnant women, history tells us that the sordid reality was likely to be poverty, spousal abuse, and child abandonment. Some marriages worked in the long run, obviously, but a non-religious society would hopefully have come up with a number of other solutions that would be far superior for both the girl and child.
Though what was the reality for young pregnant women who did not marry?
I suspect if the father of her child was supportive she would do OK whether married or not. And if he was not supportive the outcome, whether they married or not, was heavily dependent on what support she obtained from her other family. If they supported her (married or not) she would do OK. If not, not.
A key question would be the net benefit/detriment of whether forcing them to marry increased the chances he would be pressured into being supportive when he would otherwise be unsupportive vs whether cornering him into a marriage he didn’t want would tend to make him behave so badly that she would be better off without him. I don’t know how that pans out.
Mostly dire, forcing the U.S. to be ahead of the curve in mandating child support. Note that the level of abandonment by fathers was so severe that after the 1870’s laws criminalizing desertion began to appear.
What’s only hinted at in that account is the societal disapproval of single mothers, and the fervent wish that they would just get married so they could be properly ignored.
There’s a world of difference between 15 and 18 (or 15 and 12). But your proposal’d ignore that completely. And your proposal would treat 18 y.o.s sexing up 13 y.o.s with a slap on the wrist. I see some of the arguments for Romeo and Juliet laws as understandable, but your version is just too lenient.
In my state a misdemeanor can carry jail time of up to 2 1/2 years. That penalty is fairly consistent throughout the country. How long would you send the 18 year old away for in that situation?
Like I said, a slap on the wrist. And “can” is the operative word there, I’m sure.
An 18 y.o. having sex with a 13 y.o.? Life.
So, 5 to 6 times the average penalty for a forcible rape? Maybe we should just dust off the electric chairs.
“A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 9.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. This follows the typical pattern of violent crimes in the US, where those convicted typically serve no more than half of their sentence.”[28]
You didn’t ask me what I’d set the penalty for that at. That would be life, as well. No possibility of parole, either.
I don’t know what the point was of contrasting the penalty I would like to give rapists with actual lenient sentences handed out under a patriarchal rape culture, as though they remotely comparable. Some kind of bait-and-switch game?
I’m against capital punishment, even for rapists.
So, greater than the average penalty for manslaughter and 2nd degree murder? Let’s change that to life without parole too?
Call me crazy, but when I post something on a discussion board, I am typically not surprised when someone discusses it. Your proposed penalties seem draconian to me, especially when contrasted with actual sentences handed down in other types of crimes. If you want to label that comparison as bait and switch, have at it.