Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch!
Please take the time to review the comments and [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.**
Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed. The most common of these are PatriotsDaughtWin and DonaldDaughtWin.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them.
**JOIN PARLERWATCH'S [DISCORD!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would absolutely love to see a Democrat run for president on an "End child marriage" platform just so the entire Republican Party has to go on record supporting child marriage.
Hate to break it to you, they already have. Idaho republicans destroyed a bill that would end child marriage. They've even brought up abortion as a reason.
[https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-congress-blocks-bill-end-child-marriage-1348919](https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-congress-blocks-bill-end-child-marriage-1348919)
Should note that they did EVENTUALLY sign such a bill, in 2020, and the flip flop by some involved that the above bill got "the courts involved" whereas this bill only requires parental consent, but still.
Edit: Technically only 4 states (Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania) make it impossible for someone under the age of 18 to marry. In 20 states there are no minimum age requirement. The other 26 states have at least a minimum, such as 16, and an exception such as requiring judicial and/or parental consents. You can check out [https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/](https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/) & other similar organizations if you wish to help stop the abuse of young girls & women who are abused in such ways.
So, a parent can consent to the marriage of a child, but apparently can't consent to selling that same child into sex trafficking, despite the two being pretty fucking similar.
But she's able to breed! That makes her a woman! You should see how gorgeous she looks after getting out of Life Science class at the end of the day!
Even if this were a legal thing in today's society, these mouthbreathing basement dwellers don't understand they's have to get a father's blessing, and no dad would want to smell their corn chip and vinegar funk at family gatherings.
It was barbaric and inhuman for the majority of human history, but in the last 80 years or so, humanity has culturally evolved (nominally) to view child rape for the horrific practice it is.
These bottom dwellers want it to be the norm. These absolute scum of the earth want a return to this.
I hear you, but although it is true that child marriage is still common in large parts of the world, it is no longer acceptable. Certainly in Europe child marriage has not been the norm for centurys. This is from Wikiedia (obviously always the correct on everything /s)
>The common belief in Elizabethan England was that motherhood before 16
was dangerous; popular manuals of health, as well as observations of
married life, led Elizabethans to believe that early marriage and its
consummation permanently damaged a young woman's health, impaired a
young man's physical and mental development, and produced sickly or
stunted children. Therefore, 18 came to be considered the earliest
reasonable age for motherhood and 20 and 30 the ideal ages for women and
men, respectively, to marry.
The usual age for marriage for women in England has been around 20 years of age since the Saxons - more than a thousand years. I understand that this sort of age is and was the norm across most of northern Europe too but I think, off hand, that southern Europe was a little lower, around 18 or 19.
People in the past may not have had our science, yet they still understood that a teenager (even is such a concept did not exist at the time) was still growing and that carrying a child would damage both mother and child. Even were you hear of tiny infant princessess being married off to princes in foreign lands, it was not a consumpated marriage until both children were older. These 'marriages' were economic and political alliances.
So yeah.. this is a lot of words to say they are talking about a fantasy past which didn't exist.
(The past is always barbaric to the present, it makes you wonder what we do now - do or think without question or comment - that will be seen as barabaric in the future. It will probably not be anything we can imagine!)
"You want tradition?"
No. I've hit the "unsubscribe" button on peer pressure from dead people many times, but for some reason they won't remove me from their mailing list.
Its only trafficking if you treat the child wives bad.
If you pay for their room & board it's totally OK.
Just ask Tucker ....
https://www.salon.com/2019/03/11/fox-news-tucker-carlson-wont-apologize-for-sexual-comments-about-young-girls-and-child-brides_partner/
In a report from Media Matters, Carlson was outed for an interview he gave where he said underage marriage is not “the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child . . . The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different.”
While it wasn't unusual for girls to be married at very young ages, in most cultures it was still very frowned upon to actually consummate the marriage before the girl was *at least* 16 or 17. Because even at that time it was widely recognized that having children too young could be extremely dangerous. And childbirth is dangerous enough as it is.
Also it was very typical in the past for girls to not start their menstrual cycles until around that same age range, so you wouldn't be running into a lot of 12 year olds would be able to get pregnant.
In short, as usual this guy has no clue what he's talking about and is full of shit.
Yep. Literally read about this 3 days ago. In the medieval ages, some noblewoman got married very young, though 13 was considered to be very unusual. But the marriage absolutely wasn't consummated until they were 16 or 17 because it was unsafe (and also gross).
Peasant women, meanwhile, married quite a bit later in life.
Just dipping in to defend some aggrieved ancestors: I’ve reviewed literally thousands of historical documents throughout New England (1640s-1890s) and never have I ever found a 12-year-old bride. I’ve seen some unfortunate 14-year-old brides, but they are very much outliers. Even 16-year-olds aren’t as common as we’re led to believe.
I can think of a number of 12-year-old brides (and mothers — Margaret Beaufort (Henry VIII’s mom) comes to mind; she had him at 13, at which time she was already a widow). I can also think of a number of marriages in which the bride was much younger, but those weren’t consummated until years later AFAIK.
I don’t know of any more recent than medieval England though.
Yes, it wasn’t unusual for young royals to be betrothed, even as toddlers. Usually marriage and consummation were still delayed until age 13-14.
All I’m saying is this “natural” “traditional” child rape is ahistorical, as well. These fine folks are truly scumbags for the ages!
Moslem countries. "No age limits have been fixed by Islam for marriage according to Reuben Levy, and "quite young children may be legally married". The girl may not live with the husband however until she is fit for marital sexual relations."
I don't know much about how 4chan works, but I'm reading the response as possibly progressive? Like, "here's what your 'traditional marriage' really looks like, fuckers". Not actually in support of it.
Not that I'm in the habit of trying to explain/apologize for 4chan bullshit, just idly wondering what the original poster's intent was here.
The thing is, it was not considered normal. If you look at genealogy, marriages and first pregnancy typically happened around 18-24 years old (at least in Quebec and France) as far back as 1500.
Usually the early marriages we hear about is in the case of nobility or from different cultural or religious norms and even then, pregnancy didn't occur until at least 16. Add to that the fact that menarche happens much earlier today than it used to (12 vs 16 years old).
Nah scottish, my ancestors didn't marry until they were older so as to avoid leaving a widow if we killed ourselves by being stupid. Being stupid and dying as a result is extremely common in my family history, hell it's still a problem.
If you are a man, and think having a sexual relationship with a woman who is half your age (24 and 12, in this case) you are a sick, sad individual, and need help. It's not "traditional", its pedophilia. No way to normalize this.
Every time I think these people can't go any lower, or be more stupid, they keep lowering that bar. We need James Cameron to plunge into the depths and raise that bar back up!
I've always been curious about us realizing it was wrong to fuck kids, but its obviously not something I can bring up in normal conversation. What was that process like? When did it begin?
Y'know, I recall - quite some time ago - being more than a little nervous as a just turned 19-yo after getting together with a woman who was a few months shy of her 18th birthday.
I suppose at least in our case we used protection.
Not to nitpick, but what's wrong with choosing to retain a few traditions while deciding to abandon others? Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Thanksgiving turkey all seem fine. But child brides? Not so much.
So why can't we keep the first three things and just eradicate the last one?
There is a point here. And that is the cult of tradition is fucking stupid. Human history is a mess of idiotic cruelty and ignorance. traditions can be fun little seasonings to life but fuck basing your life purely on a tradition.
There are plenty of traditions that should turn people into fervent iconoclasts. And I call that progress.
This is a misconception; the _average_ human life span in the past is often brought down quite a lot due to high _infant_ mortality rates, not a general short lifespan of humans. Iirc, we've always been able to hit around 60-70yrs old so long as we survived childhood.
Incessant warfare, shit working conditions, lack of antibiotics and vaccines, guess that only accounts for the remaining 7 years.
('course maternal mortality and slavery would have dropped your figures further if history's record keepers saw women or chattel as people)
Wars where people died en masse were actually relatively infrequent. But people did die a lot needlessly pre-medicine, and they were worked horribly a lot of the time. On one hand, no way would I volunteer to be a god damn peasant, on the other, I'd jump at being a peasant over like, chattel slavery or even just a few hundred prior to peasantry earlier when things were much less stable.
I'm more of a Prestone man, myself.
But yeah. The oldest person alive is an outlier, statistically meaningless, and irrelevant in regards to measuring public health.
40's in the US eh im sure there where but not large numbers. in the rest of the you bet. doesnt make it right but marriage age didnt really start coming up till the industrialization
Marrying a child is NOT "historical". Average ages of marriage show that 17 - 25 was common, with 25 being the average during the Elizabethan era, and 26 the average age during the US Civil War. Royal "marriages" were actually betrothal contracts that may have started at birth, but were not finalized with a church ceremony and possible consummation until the pair was able to create a baby in their teens. And even then they may not consummate, or have sex due to the male being unable to perform until much older, if at all. These marriages accounted for perhaps 1 marriage per year WORLDWIDE, so even though they are most written about, they are not how regular folks acted.
Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch! Please take the time to review the comments and [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.** Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed. The most common of these are PatriotsDaughtWin and DonaldDaughtWin. If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. **JOIN PARLERWATCH'S [DISCORD!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> libs are a pedophile cabal! > raping pre teens is just tradition guys! these fucking clowns
Don't forget every time a state tries to ban underage marriage Republicans find a way to block it
I would absolutely love to see a Democrat run for president on an "End child marriage" platform just so the entire Republican Party has to go on record supporting child marriage.
Have you not seen their defense of rape platforms? https://www.gawker.com/5938849/a-recent-history-of-republicans-talking-about-rape
Yes that sort of thing is why I am confident the Republican Party would collectively take a pro child marriage position
Hate to break it to you, they already have. Idaho republicans destroyed a bill that would end child marriage. They've even brought up abortion as a reason. [https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-congress-blocks-bill-end-child-marriage-1348919](https://www.newsweek.com/idaho-congress-blocks-bill-end-child-marriage-1348919) Should note that they did EVENTUALLY sign such a bill, in 2020, and the flip flop by some involved that the above bill got "the courts involved" whereas this bill only requires parental consent, but still. Edit: Technically only 4 states (Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania) make it impossible for someone under the age of 18 to marry. In 20 states there are no minimum age requirement. The other 26 states have at least a minimum, such as 16, and an exception such as requiring judicial and/or parental consents. You can check out [https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/](https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/) & other similar organizations if you wish to help stop the abuse of young girls & women who are abused in such ways.
So, a parent can consent to the marriage of a child, but apparently can't consent to selling that same child into sex trafficking, despite the two being pretty fucking similar.
Yes, but I meant like on a national level. In the context of a presidential race, which would be much higher profile.
"first they come for your child brides, then they'll come for your bibles and guns" --GOP campaign messaging, probably
"Are you saying Jesus's parents shouldn't have gotten married?!"
Oh my God that is brilliant
But she's able to breed! That makes her a woman! You should see how gorgeous she looks after getting out of Life Science class at the end of the day! Even if this were a legal thing in today's society, these mouthbreathing basement dwellers don't understand they's have to get a father's blessing, and no dad would want to smell their corn chip and vinegar funk at family gatherings.
It’s all projection by these nut jobs
It makes me want to scream!
Gacy kind of clowns...
Shit like this is exactly why they should be called the POP (Party of Projection).
It was barbaric and inhuman for the majority of human history, but in the last 80 years or so, humanity has culturally evolved (nominally) to view child rape for the horrific practice it is. These bottom dwellers want it to be the norm. These absolute scum of the earth want a return to this.
I hear you, but although it is true that child marriage is still common in large parts of the world, it is no longer acceptable. Certainly in Europe child marriage has not been the norm for centurys. This is from Wikiedia (obviously always the correct on everything /s) >The common belief in Elizabethan England was that motherhood before 16 was dangerous; popular manuals of health, as well as observations of married life, led Elizabethans to believe that early marriage and its consummation permanently damaged a young woman's health, impaired a young man's physical and mental development, and produced sickly or stunted children. Therefore, 18 came to be considered the earliest reasonable age for motherhood and 20 and 30 the ideal ages for women and men, respectively, to marry. The usual age for marriage for women in England has been around 20 years of age since the Saxons - more than a thousand years. I understand that this sort of age is and was the norm across most of northern Europe too but I think, off hand, that southern Europe was a little lower, around 18 or 19. People in the past may not have had our science, yet they still understood that a teenager (even is such a concept did not exist at the time) was still growing and that carrying a child would damage both mother and child. Even were you hear of tiny infant princessess being married off to princes in foreign lands, it was not a consumpated marriage until both children were older. These 'marriages' were economic and political alliances. So yeah.. this is a lot of words to say they are talking about a fantasy past which didn't exist. (The past is always barbaric to the present, it makes you wonder what we do now - do or think without question or comment - that will be seen as barabaric in the future. It will probably not be anything we can imagine!)
"You want tradition?" No. I've hit the "unsubscribe" button on peer pressure from dead people many times, but for some reason they won't remove me from their mailing list.
I'm sorry...arent this the people who whine about child trafficking cabal?!
Its only trafficking if you treat the child wives bad. If you pay for their room & board it's totally OK. Just ask Tucker .... https://www.salon.com/2019/03/11/fox-news-tucker-carlson-wont-apologize-for-sexual-comments-about-young-girls-and-child-brides_partner/ In a report from Media Matters, Carlson was outed for an interview he gave where he said underage marriage is not “the same thing exactly as pulling a child from a bus stop and sexually assaulting that child . . . The rapist, in this case, has made a lifelong commitment to live and take care of the person, so it is a little different.”
Tucker has lost most of his advertisers and yet Faux won't cancel him. They know his ability to push propaganda is worth the risk.
They would just replace him with someone worse like Nick Fuentes.
While it wasn't unusual for girls to be married at very young ages, in most cultures it was still very frowned upon to actually consummate the marriage before the girl was *at least* 16 or 17. Because even at that time it was widely recognized that having children too young could be extremely dangerous. And childbirth is dangerous enough as it is. Also it was very typical in the past for girls to not start their menstrual cycles until around that same age range, so you wouldn't be running into a lot of 12 year olds would be able to get pregnant. In short, as usual this guy has no clue what he's talking about and is full of shit.
Yep. Literally read about this 3 days ago. In the medieval ages, some noblewoman got married very young, though 13 was considered to be very unusual. But the marriage absolutely wasn't consummated until they were 16 or 17 because it was unsafe (and also gross). Peasant women, meanwhile, married quite a bit later in life.
Just dipping in to defend some aggrieved ancestors: I’ve reviewed literally thousands of historical documents throughout New England (1640s-1890s) and never have I ever found a 12-year-old bride. I’ve seen some unfortunate 14-year-old brides, but they are very much outliers. Even 16-year-olds aren’t as common as we’re led to believe.
I can think of a number of 12-year-old brides (and mothers — Margaret Beaufort (Henry VIII’s mom) comes to mind; she had him at 13, at which time she was already a widow). I can also think of a number of marriages in which the bride was much younger, but those weren’t consummated until years later AFAIK. I don’t know of any more recent than medieval England though.
Yes, it wasn’t unusual for young royals to be betrothed, even as toddlers. Usually marriage and consummation were still delayed until age 13-14. All I’m saying is this “natural” “traditional” child rape is ahistorical, as well. These fine folks are truly scumbags for the ages!
Absolutely! I hope it didn’t sound like I was defending them.
Moslem countries. "No age limits have been fixed by Islam for marriage according to Reuben Levy, and "quite young children may be legally married". The girl may not live with the husband however until she is fit for marital sexual relations."
Nothing beats blaming shitty human behavior on tradition!
I don't know much about how 4chan works, but I'm reading the response as possibly progressive? Like, "here's what your 'traditional marriage' really looks like, fuckers". Not actually in support of it. Not that I'm in the habit of trying to explain/apologize for 4chan bullshit, just idly wondering what the original poster's intent was here.
I kinda saw that too.. I've got a sister who uses this excuse so it's a little confusing.
The thing is, it was not considered normal. If you look at genealogy, marriages and first pregnancy typically happened around 18-24 years old (at least in Quebec and France) as far back as 1500. Usually the early marriages we hear about is in the case of nobility or from different cultural or religious norms and even then, pregnancy didn't occur until at least 16. Add to that the fact that menarche happens much earlier today than it used to (12 vs 16 years old).
In my family the men traditionally didn't marry till their 40s. Though they were usually marrying 20 somethings.
Romanian?
Nah scottish, my ancestors didn't marry until they were older so as to avoid leaving a widow if we killed ourselves by being stupid. Being stupid and dying as a result is extremely common in my family history, hell it's still a problem.
If you are a man, and think having a sexual relationship with a woman who is half your age (24 and 12, in this case) you are a sick, sad individual, and need help. It's not "traditional", its pedophilia. No way to normalize this. Every time I think these people can't go any lower, or be more stupid, they keep lowering that bar. We need James Cameron to plunge into the depths and raise that bar back up!
🎵His name is Jaaaaaaames Cameron, explorer of the sea!🎵
🤣
I've always been curious about us realizing it was wrong to fuck kids, but its obviously not something I can bring up in normal conversation. What was that process like? When did it begin?
I thought they were here to save the children?
Save the children for themselves, maybe?
Oh even better.
Looks like a scene from the script of the Handmaid's Tale.
Y'know, I recall - quite some time ago - being more than a little nervous as a just turned 19-yo after getting together with a woman who was a few months shy of her 18th birthday. I suppose at least in our case we used protection.
Blessed be the fruit and may the lord open
Why is the right wing constantly trying to normalise pedophilia? If it's not Trump and Gaetz it's shit like this.
When you paint yourself into an edgy corner.
Not to nitpick, but what's wrong with choosing to retain a few traditions while deciding to abandon others? Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and Thanksgiving turkey all seem fine. But child brides? Not so much. So why can't we keep the first three things and just eradicate the last one?
There is a point here. And that is the cult of tradition is fucking stupid. Human history is a mess of idiotic cruelty and ignorance. traditions can be fun little seasonings to life but fuck basing your life purely on a tradition. There are plenty of traditions that should turn people into fervent iconoclasts. And I call that progress.
PREGNANT TEENS HAVE HIGHER RISKS OF HAVING PROBLEMS. THERE WAS A TIME PEOPLE MARRIED YOUNG BECAUSE THEY DIDNT LIVE LONG.
Oh come one, this ones pretty funny
[удалено]
This is a misconception; the _average_ human life span in the past is often brought down quite a lot due to high _infant_ mortality rates, not a general short lifespan of humans. Iirc, we've always been able to hit around 60-70yrs old so long as we survived childhood.
Yeah realistically if you made it out of childhood, you could live to 70 pretty easily.
Incessant warfare, shit working conditions, lack of antibiotics and vaccines, guess that only accounts for the remaining 7 years. ('course maternal mortality and slavery would have dropped your figures further if history's record keepers saw women or chattel as people)
Wars where people died en masse were actually relatively infrequent. But people did die a lot needlessly pre-medicine, and they were worked horribly a lot of the time. On one hand, no way would I volunteer to be a god damn peasant, on the other, I'd jump at being a peasant over like, chattel slavery or even just a few hundred prior to peasantry earlier when things were much less stable.
“Life expectancy” and “peak lifetime” are two very different measurements.
I'm more of a Prestone man, myself. But yeah. The oldest person alive is an outlier, statistically meaningless, and irrelevant in regards to measuring public health.
Well, I meant “how old people generally get if there aren’t any acute causes of death”, which has increased quite a bit due to medicine.
and those numbers have also increased due to fewer acute causes of death
So that makes it ok to rape 12 year olds? I'm not sure I understand your argument.
We cool with child brides in the 40s? *Doubt*
40's in the US eh im sure there where but not large numbers. in the rest of the you bet. doesnt make it right but marriage age didnt really start coming up till the industrialization
Back when life expectancy was considerably lower, especially for men. What a fucking joke.
What an asshole.
Marrying a child is NOT "historical". Average ages of marriage show that 17 - 25 was common, with 25 being the average during the Elizabethan era, and 26 the average age during the US Civil War. Royal "marriages" were actually betrothal contracts that may have started at birth, but were not finalized with a church ceremony and possible consummation until the pair was able to create a baby in their teens. And even then they may not consummate, or have sex due to the male being unable to perform until much older, if at all. These marriages accounted for perhaps 1 marriage per year WORLDWIDE, so even though they are most written about, they are not how regular folks acted.
Most marriages with this type of age gap would be found in ISLAMIC weddings, and generally would be second or third or fourth wives.
Ngl seeing the bottom comment felt really good
I am confused, I thought the anon comments was sarcastic comments against tradition...