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.