This just came to mind because I genuinely am just curious, but off the top of my head, 'if she bleeds' was never something that a predominantly white society practiced, not even the medieval period.
Comments (131)
sorted by:
This just came to mind because I genuinely am just curious, but off the top of my head, 'if she bleeds' was never something that a predominantly white society practiced, not even the medieval period.
I'm not a history buff, but I believe the general consensus amongst historians is that, in ancient European societies, marriage for women was legal after puberty, usually around 14 years of age.
Regardless, the trolls are still retards.
Even then, it was mostly noble children that would get married that young due to how important marriages were for the nobles, so it was still no where near as common as widely believed.
One thing I was wondering, because arranged noble marriages for diplomatic purposes did come to mind—when a pair of very young (12-14, say) nobles "married" did they actually consummate the marriages immediately, or did they wait? Like how there are historical examples of extremely young "kings," but in practice those kings would have a regent ruling for them until they came of age.
It was common for such diplomatic or status marriages to have a clause forbidding ''consumation'' before age 16.
Probably depended quite a bit on how vital it was that they create an heir.
Beyond that though, I'm unsure. How much social pressure the young married couple would experience might be rather rooted in their culture, which can vary a bit from one European country to another on something like that.
Lawrence Gardner traces royal families lines back to biblical times. It was an end justifies the means issue. There are very good lectures on the tube. But, they're old, the video quality is yuck. But, LG died before better quality were made.
You're describing Mahammad.
"Mostly" discounts the outliers in society. Nobles had it occur to them more often per-capita, but considering nobles were outnumbered a hundred to one, I suspect that more girls were married off young among commoners.
A family has a tough time feeding the kids one winter, and there's a decent enough 20-something bachelor nearby who can take care of her, and the daughter gets married at 14 instead of 18.
Warped as it may sound, I wouldn't be surprised if the age and timing sometimes depended a lot on when a young woman had "blossomed", to the optimal appeal and value as a prospective wife and mother. Which I imagine might've had some range and variability, while also factoring in mortality and different cultural norms of the time period.
And I think in some respects there'd be a similar sort of expectation for the ideal male bachelor as well. Obviously with different kinds of qualifiers.
All of this is of course that those involved weren't pressed for time with regards to financial or political concerns. And I am totally hypothesizing her without an solid evidence to back up my thoughts.
Well it's not just that, the other excuse I've seen is because of the high mortality rate in that society. People weren't living to their 70s-90s back then as often.
People did die of disease more often then, but the average age expectancy is heavily weighted by the high child mortality of the time too.
Yeah there is - it's called mental maturity
This comment makes me think you need to babysit a dozen teen mom's with screaming babies for at least 8 hours straight.
The American system was designed to destroy the nuclear family. This is part of the civil rights movement, that's why it's not taught anymore. But, it was in my history books.
First. There was NEVER a welfare queen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen#:~:text=The%20%22welfare%20queen%22%20stereotype%20is,morals%2C%20and%20avoidance%20of%20work.
This propaganda was retaliation, and there are still idiots that believe it.
There are programs to help teen mom's. Housing, school, etc. But, these are based on household income. So, the man can't live there. Then it was taken a step further. Any assistance given to the Mom, and child get is directly taken from the father.
This is why so many birth certificates don't have a father listed. It's the only way to have a two income household. Because what I explained above means below poverty level. ( take a look at those numbers) It's taking from the left to give to the right.
The vast majority of documentation through history involves the noble classes, because who would write about fucking peasants? Nobles engaged in all sorts of ridiculous bullshit regarding politics and behavior the rest of society wouldn't even consider. So whatever we know historically for most nations is like taking Epstein as a sign of what all Americans were doing.
Given that puberty in girls has been trending earlier as industrial society progresses, its almost a certainty that "she bleedin'" was a mid-teen thing for most of history anyway. An age when most boys were already working actual jobs, if they weren't years into hard labor on the family business anyway, because the concept of adulthood were usually based around them. So they wouldn't be some innocent "child wife," but more of more world ready highschooler.
Not to mention that for most of white societies, the father had to give his daughter away. Most of them weren't gonna just toss her out to the first pervert that showed up unless he was rich as shit. So it doesn't matter if you could legally do it, you still had to manage it and most people who talk about it lack both the social skills and the capital to have ever done so.
Good analysis of what's going on here. So many people, even on these forums, get caught up debating "what's the right age?" that they entirely miss the real world issues that they're attempting to define. They approach it from the perspective of regulating a recreational activity rather than one of the most deeply significant issues which defines the course of most people's lives. It might be easy to imagine a consensual one night stand, while missing the harm done by arranged child marriages.
Edit: I actually have a pet theory that the focused debate on age is deliberately ignoring the base reason we care: that much older people can easily mislead younger people due to their significantly greater experience with life as a human. I feel as though, if we were to have a significant discussion about this type of abuse it may threaten some significant tech companies who take advantage of the same lack of worldly experience to addict and entrap youth openly. A very significant portion of which does, in fact, prey upon youthful sex drives.
Church books should have records of birth, marriage, baptism and death. Those dates should tell us at what age people married and had children.
A lot of this is what I was attempting to allude to in another comment. In many respects a lot of the dynamics are not that far off from relatively modern Western cultures. Especially with regards to whether or not a marriage proposal or arrangement is deemed acceptable or not by the father. The practical and emotional concerns of a father have not exactly changed a lot in the last 1000 years. (Clownworld aside).
While obviously there were probably cases where things were rushed due to financial and/or political concerns, I imagine that most involved would likely not be eager to arrange something unless a young woman had gone through sufficient physical development to manage through ordeals such as childbirth.
And I wouldn't be surprised if this sentiment was at least somewhat shared between both nobles and people of lower classes alike.
I think all that's really changed is we don't need to use daughters for alliances and political marriages much in the Western World (places with arranged marriages do, but they've had their own unique history regarding it).
So there is even less reason to give up your daughter from an early age to a random guy, especially as dowries aren't really "in style" so anyone offering to buy her comes across as massively suspicious.
Nope. Had a friend have a baby at that age. It's considered dangerous because women's hips need to widen to be large enough for the baby to be able to safely pass through. And , it's also pedophilia fool.
You can look at the not potato famine. Even immigrating to America didn't save them. The girls were malnourashed, and they didn't mature properly. I had a history teacher that put so many of these death certificates on the projector. The ages were much lower than we are used to seeing... Like what you're suggesting to be clear.
Pregnancy is a medical condition, and it's very serious for some women. I died both times I gave birth. THEY USED THE FUCKING PADDLES when I gave birth to my oldest son, and that shit fucking hurts! You have no idea what you're talking about. I also had Rhesus Syndrome with my second child. Imagine being allergic to something that's inside you, but you reeeeeeeeeeeeally want what's killing you.
Janet Jackson had her first baby at 52. That's considered a geriatric pregnancy. Even in the same family girls don't start menses at the same age btw. My big sis, and lil sis started at 9. I started at 13. That means my lil sis had her mense before me. Pregnancy has a Goldilocks zone.
When men participate in raising kids, they suddenly want less kids.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/paid-paternity-leave-study-spain-men-fewer-children
https://www.newsweek.com/fathers-fewer-kids-paternity-leave-study-1430136
As an aside the pedos won't need actual children due to the pubity blockers that got trendy. It's been going on long enough that technical adults have the physical, and mental ability of children.
You clearly fucked up your algo with this nonsense.
Wrong. Age had nothing to do with it. My dumbass did what you're suggesting. Married at 18. I had a divorce party getting gone was so great.
I'm done replying to you. There's no way you don't know women are given drugs right into the spine for labor.
Yes those are all things I said. You don't need to repeat them back with extra sperg.
Good show that you are on a script, really beating that paid shill accusation.
Gee, wonder why.
Primitive as they once were, the whites recognized the sheer value of their children when it came to preserving their species and memetic knowledge and over time, evolved mechanisms to ensure that their children grew up in an environ where they would not be harmed.
The subhumans have no such capacity for preservation of their gene pool - they even breed with their own children to desperately sate their urge to breed. All that exists to them is 'now'.
That's why the subhumans have "sexual emergencies".
Remind me... Who had the witch trials, and killed all the healers?
Witchcraft trials today? It's predominantly in cultures that failed to evolve and cast aside those trappings. Africa, The Indian subcontinent, those kinda places. Why'd you ask?
The comment I replied to was regarding history. I'm going to try again. The state of medicine was a direct result of the Catholic church, and their unchristian willingness to murder. Look at the Cathars.
This comment, I agree with you that there are people in the world still following inappropriate ways. There was an AITA yesterday about a stepmom hiding her 18 yr old stepdaughter because her grandparents from home country wanted to marry her off to a 30+ yr old man.
The comments were very informative. I don't understand everything in this thread, but some of the dumb shit is human trafficking. Whatever it's coming from leave it alone. You don't want to be on that list.
Sounds like just another islamic theocracy that targets and murders women and healers for "heresy". They're all the same to me - threats. Good thing the white folks started to crack the catholics.
I get a small government pension for marking human traffickers for capture. It ain't much, but it's honest work.
...Sometimes they scream for hours. It is very pretty.
The Cathers were Christians exterminated by the Catholic church because they refused to convert.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
Sounds like the islamic state doing what it does best but it was 1350. So, what's your argument again?
Islam has nothing to do with the Cathars. They were from a region in France. If you got mixed up ask your question again. If you're just trying to get a reply, I'm online because I'm procrastinating.
Read more drama. It's ALWAYS the same patterns, the same red flags, the same abuse. It's like people opening up their relationship, so damn predictable.
That's pedophilia. The lunatics with their MAPs, and YAPs think just like your comment.
Are you aware that "witch" was not a gendered term until recently? Are you aware that about 50% of the "witches" killed throughout history were men?
I'm guessing not.
Some other terms are shamans, seers, wise men. Why nitpick? Most of them died because they had something someone else wanted. The end result is still the knowledge was either lost or went underground.
Probably shouldn't be guessing with someone who was using coursera for entertainment.
All this post does is legitimize the troll and give him a safe space to vent and get the drama he craves without even trying to bait. It's not on topic for this board anyway. If we could somehow lock him in here along with anyone who replies to him that would be great.
There is no "topic" for this board
Despite the fact that posts are often all over the place surrounding current events (and it's cool as long as people are legitimately just trying to have a discussion), there is indeed an overall topic or theme, and it's not what this guy is peddling.
Don't feed the trolls.
That's on me, I'm never asking this question again or anything close to it, because I had no fucking idea that it would result in this. 55 comments in 2 hours is reserved for stuff like when people start sperging about lolis in the public eye
It's honestly an interesting historical topic, but unfortunately yes, it's the worst topic to try to have a discussion on when we're still being swarmed by those trolls.
This thread is full of bad AI bots isn't it? Total non-sequiturs and everyone just rolls with it.
I literally put this up as a question and went to go do errands and it blew up this fast. Didn't mean to feed the trolls at all, I was just genuinely curious lol
That was a thing in Southern Italy. Heck, it's mentioned in Romeo and Juliet as a complaint. It took a lot of effort to stop it. It was known in Spain as well. Once again this was stopped but we still see mentions of it in the cultures.
Roman slaves were considered less human so it was common enough to demand sexual favors from them. This wasn't all of Rome and there were people complaining about it even then.
I have friends from places like Iraq and Iran and they constantly complain that the lower people are being let into our country and ruin their good name. Mercy killings, child brides, and worse are real and also hated.
It's the same as foot binding in China. When you talk to most non historians, they say it was from men and promoted by the emperor. Instead, the emperors banned it several times, and men wrote essays on its evils. Women promoted it, especially in the more backwoods areas, and then let it grow. The magazines that promoted it had less views than my YouTube videos. It was a very niche porn. Even today, women are found with broken feet even though most of China has moved on.
Could we find horrible people in any walk of life doing awful things? Yes. Does most of society want it? Not really. The problem is stopping it is usually from a top down perspective, so it feels like rebellion to have a child bride.
Can we find it in the USA among white people? Yes. I had friends who were caught up in that system. I know one friend has a dad go in and shoot people who had pimped out his daughter. Then his brother continued to push it. We know Epstein Island exists. I've spotted a friend on a website because she sent a video to a guy she thought was her boyfriend.
Should we judge ourselves based on the evils in our own society? Should we seek out and stop those evils? How should we show other societies how to do it? Believe me, I want to know in an actual way, because of what I've seen and heard.
French Colonial Lower Canada has laws about maximums before marriage, rather than minimums. You'd need to pay a surtax if you were not married by that point. They were desperate for the population growth. I believe it was 16 for women, 18 for men, though, so certainly not this literal infant nonsense, though you could reasonably expect the marriage to occur earlier than the latest tax deadline, I suppose.
If you're looking for younger examples, in Romeo And Juliet, Juliet "Had not yet seen fourteen summers", as per her father in the play, but was being put to an arranged marriage situation. Another character chastizes him for letting her get that old, implying the marriage age should have been younger, and a lack of pushback in the narrative to that idea implies it would have been at least somewhat acceptable to audiences at the time.
All this stated, in colonial Canada, they thought the best way to cure an infection was leeches and cocaine, and if that failed, amputation. And Shakespearian medical science started and stopped with "have you tried more powdered lead infused heroin?", so while there are indeed historical examples of a society's norms being quite different than ours on a sexual health basis, those norms are ALSO rather barbaric in the rest of their health sciences, and you should look back on those societal views with bemused castigation, not idolatry.
Didn't King John consummate a marriage so early it led to the Magna Carta because it was so shocking? And no other King has taken the name John because of it?
Because medieval life expectancy was in the 30s or early 40s, and widespread death of children due to disease and other medical problems, the earlier a marriage produced children, the more likely said couple would be able to produce offspring that lived to adulthood. Insofar as age of female reproduction goes, historically 16 was plenty old enough to produce children.
It was also old enough to hold a sword. What we call children now were often expected to take up adult positions, in war, and employment. That we consider 14-18 year olds children is a historical aberration, and this is not the norm when you look at history.
For instance, during the age of sail, all navies took young men aboard as young officers, often in their early teen years. Watch Master and Commander again, and note that not a few of the captain's officers were definitely teenagers, one little more than a boy (the one who looses an arm.)
Girls today hit puberty earlier than ever before, as early as 9 or 10 in some cases, so just because they have their period doesn't mean they can bear a child. Getting pregnant at 12 can kill a young girl.
Islamic countries consider 9 years old plenty old enough to marry and consumate the marriage because that's what Muhammad did. Muhammad was a fucking pedo, and Muhammad is considered the perfect man in that cult.
It was me. I taught them to protect their children or else they would no longer have a future. :DDD
There's a book called, " The Red Tent". I'm not sure if that's the answer to your question. It's about when women used to be considered unclean during their menses. FYI being on the mense cycle makes women stronger in ways the patriarchy doesn't consider important/ real ( many types of clairvoyance).
Would the Olympic soccer team have beaten that team of 13-year-old boys if they were all on their period?
Here's something you can measure.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180806-how-the-menstrual-cycle-changes-womens-brains-every-month
Apply this to these
https://thecrystalcouncil.com/blog/clairvoyance-clairaudience-all-the-clair-s
LOL, she got one thing right. Women are better at non-verbal communication skills, but men are systems aware enough to know that that isn't clairvoyance.
The Bible does say that menstruation is unclean, but that clairvoyance bit sounds like some Wiccan nonsense.
The Bible is an anthology, and the most important thing to remember is they want power you don't have. Telling you not to do something theyr'e doing is a great method.
Diehold Foundation has great vids, it gets technical but Doug Vought ( RIP) is a good teacher.
What is it they're telling me not to do?
In her case, I think it was "don't listen to the voices in your head."
Magic
You mean magick with a -ck?
If you like Tarot, Path of the Fool, by Michael Tsarion
https://archive.org/stream/PathOfTheFoolMichaelTsarion/Path%20of%20the%20Fool%20-%20Michael%20%20Tsarion_djvu.txt
Dr. Steven Skinner is renown in occult, ancient manuscripts, and theology research.
https://www.sskinner.com/
If you like words games thats called word magic
https://youtu.be/kuFZk4czSdY
If you were just shit talking, fuck off.
The only real thing about magic is that people who believe in it are dangerous because they are easily manipulated.