... probably are not a workable political, legal, or cultural concept.

Virginia, not too long ago, raised the marriageable age. One of the justifications was that underage brides "have a divorce rate of as high as 80 percent."

Well, there's a high divorce rate in general in our society; it's just that, all else equal, it may be higher for young brides. One could speculate about the reasons for this. Maybe the more responsible, financially stable men are spending their time on other stuff besides having sex with underage girls and impregnating them, which is the kind of situation that made it legal to marry them with parental consent. Maybe the "good girls" who are more mentally stable and less slutty (perhaps because they're more religious), and have a father who watches over them to keep them from having sex and getting pregnant, are also the type to have more successful marriages when they do finally get married.

There are a lot of good reasons to allow early marriage, provided the man is suitable to take care of the woman. Young women are fertile and sexy, so men miss out if they don't get to have sex with them. Young women also, especially as they get into their mid-teens, are usually pretty eager to start having sex and feel "grown up" rather than being treated like a kid; although prepubescent girls also can enjoy sex.

But, society won't allow early marriage, or sex between older men and underage girls, if they think the results will be bad. Feminists would say, just the fact that there's a power imbalance makes it bad, even if the girl is happy. They would say, she has just internalized misogyny and decided that she deserves a bad relationship and that it's therefore okay; and that she needs to be woken up to the truth and forced out of that relationship for her own good if she refuses to acknowledge that it's wrong.

Here's where a little bit of patriarchy, a little bit of "misogyny" comes in handy. And this is where rapey pedo advocates diverge from non-rapey, and we see the real split in the pedo movement, the most relevant divide that's going to make all the difference, in terms of strategy and, I think, effectiveness. And the reason is, once you get away from the idea that female consent matters, it's easier to call into question the age of consent. History shows this is not even all that radical; men are capable of having different views on this subject than what they have now.

We didn't used to have an age of consent. The age of consent came about as a way of safeguarding the value of the bride till marriage. I'm not even sure what the logic was behind the early ages of consent, of 10 or 12; was it to allow the girl's body to mature to a point of being ready for sex, or to allow her enough maturity to understand what was going on, and its moral significance, or was it because girls used to get married at a pretty young age? Was it because when a girl hits puberty, she starts seeking out sex rather than necessarily getting seduced? We know that in some southern states, there was reluctance to raise the age of consent because white men enjoyed being able to have sex with teenage black girls, and they didn't think there was any harm if the girl was already a slut, as many of them were.

At any rate, for whatever reasons, the age of consent got raised to 16, 18, etc., the idea being that this would provide even more protection against girls' getting ruined by predatory men; but there were still laws allowing shotgun marriages if they did get seduced. (Compulsory marriage as a consequence of deflowering a young girl has actually existed since Biblical times.)

In 2020, with all this cultural pressure to tolerate sexual liberation, fathers have been somewhat willing to let their teenage daughters behave like sluts, based on the idea that if they really want to do it that badly, why stop them. But, I think they're going to be more reluctant to let men do sexual stuff with their prepubescent daughters, that those girls don't actively seek out on their own initiative.

This is where it comes in handy to be able to not really care about what the female wants, but just impose the male vision of what's best for everyone, including her. If people object, "What you're proposing is statutory rape [or marital rape, as the case may be], which is a form of rape," that argument is defused if one can say, "Yeah, so? Is rape in this kind of circumstance wrong?" You don't even have to argue about what counts as rape; you just bypass all that.

What fathers are interested in, is that their daughters get into a situation that's going to be in their best interests, and/or that will serve whatever other goals they (the father) have, which could include, e.g., carrying on the family line. Some of those require that the girl be used in ways that might go against what she wants.

For example, some dads might put a high priority on making sure that their daughter ends up in a stable household, rather than getting deflowered and/or knocked up, and returning home as damaged goods. In that case, avoiding divorce is pretty important, and one way to do that is to simply ban her from getting divorced. And, if the spouses are going to avoid getting in fights, the husband needs to be empowered to have the final say about decisions; and if they're going to avoid getting in fights over sex, then he also needs to be able to make decisions about sex, including being allowed to rape her. Some dads, having a patriarchal attitude and realizing that women make a lot of bad decisions and often become pretty unhappy when given autonomy, probably don't have a problem signing over their daughter into such an arrangement, especially when they take into account the alternatives.

If we're going to have a system where, in addition to satisfying the need of the father to be assured that his daughter will be okay, the girl also has to be willing to go along with everything that's expected or desired of her in order for the other parties to be satisfied, it becomes that much harder to come up with a system that's actually going to be functional. It's just too many stakeholders who have to be satisfied, because now there are not just two men involved, but also the girl has to consent to everything.

And I don't think we're going to be able to shift decision-making over prepubescent girls' sexual behavior from fathers, or the government, to those girls. It'll never happen; the protective instincts are too strong, and if those protective instincts ever did disappear, probably our society would disintegrate and we'd go extinct anyway, because whatever resource becomes common property tends to be treated pretty badly; and girls are an essential reproductive resource. We don't want to end up with a tragedy of the commons concerning something that important.

If young girls were allowed to roam about freely and do as they wished, probably a lot of them would get raped anyway, in practice, so if anti-rape pedos were to say, we should have a system where girls can do whatever they want, they still have not figured out how to achieve their goal.

Even college girls, who have the advantage of being adult and therefore having more knowledge and strength compared to a child, get raped a lot, because they put themselves in situations where they're vulnerable to it. Feminism doesn't have a good record of preventing rape; they say we should just teach men not to rape, which seems to assume that if you appeal to people's egalitarian ideals, they're going to be content to let their genetics get weeded out as other men, maybe less worthy men, go off with those girls and have sex with them instead, and maybe stick them with the bill for welfare to support the resulting children. Self-respecting men won't put up with this, once they realize it's not even making the girls happy in the long run, or having any other benefits for society.

Oh, and like I was saying earlier, another problem is that men will get jealous if they think other men have the ability to have sex with young girls, and they don't; so they might oppose legalization of sex with those girls for that reason. It's going to be easier, probably, for responsible men to gain sexual access to girls when this can be done through a man-to-man conversation with the father rather than by having to figure out how to seduce the girl and devote effort to that.

Never underestimate the ability of jealousy to drive people's political behavior; it's one of the reasons people don't like immigrants coming in. They say, "They take our jobs" because they feel entitled to those jobs. Similarly, if men think that a proposed system would give other men an undeserved advantage in having sex with little girls, then they are probably going to object to that system.

A system where men make the sexual decisions for women is probably going to result in a more equitable distribution of young girls to the male population, since it won't be based on which man devotes the most time and effort to seduction of said girls, and has the best seduction skills (as opposed to spending his time honing other skills; a lot of losers are good at seduction but nothing else). If people see that a system can distribute sex somewhat equitably, and reward good men with sex, then they're more likely to go along with it.

One benefit of legalizing sex with younger girls is that it's going to result in more sex, so in that sense, we're making the pie bigger, rather than redistributing the pie. Men will be getting more sex out of girls, during the years when those girls are hotter, than would otherwise be the case. So that's a selling point.

Feminists may object, but feminists can just be brushed aside at any time; most feminists are women, and women only have as much clout as men choose to give them, since they're not the ones with the muscles or the guns to enforce their will. The same applies to any courts that might try to enforce women's rights; they don't have any police or military forces under their command either, so they can be ignored if the political branches choose to do so. And the political branches tend to be dominated by men.




• ( https link ) Why 13-year-olds can no longer marry in Virginia
[Anonymouse]