My grandmother was 16 when she marries my grandfather who was 32 at the time...

My grandmother was 16 when she marries my grandfather who was 32 at the time. She always says that if she was given the chance she's do it all over again. So is it really traumatizing for someone below 18 to marry someone over it? Is this just a meme.

The only children who get traumatized by sex with people older then them are those who have been taught that it's something evil and sinister.

And First world fags, I now know your pain. Even Pakistani who marry Lolis are judged and labeled as a pedophile despite what the Law and religion says. I think all is lost now.

It's fine for children to fuck each other and pretend to be the other gender but it's wrong for them to have sex with someone older and more experienced then them.

Fuck Trump and fuck white people, kill all pedophile whites

Wut?

I'd hit it

Well I'd do it too if not for the moral implications.

Paki wants to fuck a twelve year old boy big surprise

>that image

would be an awful law to pass. People who object to this are robbing us of l i t e r a l l y perfect dickgirls.

Cucked micropenis whiteboi can't compete with superior big brown cocks and takes out his rage impotently online, poor little sissy whiteboi

It's a backwards world.
It used to be normal to marry 15 year old gals in the Middle Ages.

Please kill yourself.

Would you want your own daughter to be getting fucked by a middle aged man in her teens? Stop being so short sighted.

depends on how many goats the middle aged man would give to pay for her

keyword here is MARRIAGE OP, not sex you pedofag.

Man in his late 20s /early 30s marrying a girl about 16 is probably the best way to do it, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Would you want your daughter to run off with some young douche with little to no financial prospects and a wild nature? Marrying off an 18 year old daughter to a 30 year old man is nature's way. The Greeks did it, it was common until the 20th century. The family has started to devolve since then.

The age of consent is 16 in many US states. However, if you cross state lines it's always 18.

Anyway, all premarital sex is morally wrong. The following are all instances of premarital sex: all rape (except marital rape), bastard children born to single mothers, sex trafficking, child molestation, child sex abuse, child sex trafficking, prostitution, hardcore porn, the contraction of most STDs.

People who defend premarital sex are defending all of those (simply because they want to have premarital sex with other adults).

Liberals defend premarital sex (in one case: consenting adults having premarital sex). Yet even consensual sex can turn into rape.

In the case of your grandparents, it's likely that your 32-year-old grandfather was better-suited to provide for your 16-year-old grandmother than her 16-year-old peers.

Females are attracted to stronger, taller, older men with higher status and wealth. Males are attracted to youth and beauty.

Faggots clamor for "marriage equality" but ignore when people are not allowed to marry based on their age (something out of their control).

I'm not sure exactly at what age people are allowed to get married in the West, it might involve parental permission.

But I will argue that people having sex and then being abandoned by their partner can be very traumatic. That is why sex should only happen within marriage.

If he married her first, if he was a good provider, if he was a good guy, why not?

It's shortsighted to let her get fucked by other teens who couldn't support her if she got pregnant even if they tried.

It's shortsighted to let her get fucked by a cock carousel of guys, and then hope she can still find a quality guy who would put up with that kind of loyalty-killing sexual history.

I would make a simple rule, as long as you're living in your parent's house/under their care, you're not eligible to your own consent.

Life expectancy was around 32 back then as I recall

Here is my opinion regarding "underage" marriage.

Women and men are seperate genders with different gender roles.

Men are supposed to become independent and make their way into the world.

Women are naturally dependent but are now being forced to act independent, which they can't do. Instead of becoming dynamic people, they live life passively and degrade as the years go by.

Women are supposed to have perpetual father figures to guide them as the dependent gender they are. They are supposed to be married around 16-20 not only for the healthiest children, but also so they don't become psuedo-masculine feminists who try to upstage their husband.


That redpill will be $10.

been looking for that, thanks!!

time to fap

Don't fall for this meme. Take into account infant mortality and most people managed to live into their sixties.

>Pakistani
>Supporting pedophilia

Either your grandmother was lucky or suffers from Stockolm syndrome, because I'm pretty damn sure that the 11yo Aisha forced to marry a 45yo Mohammed isn't exactly happy with her life.

Just stay in your shitty country.

Not only that, but women in the workforce take away jobs from men, so now two-income families are almost all but required.

>I'm pretty damn sure that the 11yo Aisha forced to marry a 45yo Mohammed isn't exactly happy with her life.

Why not?

And what if she's not forced? Can you acknowledge she could be able to express what she wants and doesn't want?

With those names you're suggesting desert life, which is probably tough.

But with Western amenities, what would be wrong with him giving her everything she asked for?

Oh noes she's going to miss prom? Oh noes her life will be ruined!

is it strange that i want to fuck that kid?

Which one? The one on the right looks like a pretty girl. That's what you're attracted to.

>many young adults in the US stay on their parents medical insurance until 25
Wow, user, you really made me think.

well obviously the right one.

Yeah, my grandma married my grandpa at 16 and he was 24. They loved each other until his recent death. No harm done whatsoever. I think perhaps society ought to soften its view SLIGHTLY on age disparity in relationships when the relationship is mutual and sincere.

LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE FOR THOSE IN THE MEDIA WHOSE EYES MIGHT HAPPEN ACROSS THIS:
The mainstream opinion of those who make up the population of this board, is that all pedophiles deserve to be gassed. Do not fall for this shit skin trickery.

>I think perhaps society ought to soften its view SLIGHTLY on age disparity in relationships when the relationship is mutual and sincere.

The only reason it became sketchy is due to liberals saying there's nothing wrong with premarital sex. Sex without that kind of lifelong commitment allows abuse to occur as someone goes from one victim to the next.

Once someone accepts sex outside marriage, they have to create another barrier, and that's "consent", and age of consent laws vary from state to state, and country to country, they're totally arbitrary.

But premarital sex is the root of all kinds of ills in society. All premarital sex is morally wrong. The following are all instances of premarital sex: all rape (except marital rape), bastard children born to single mothers, sex trafficking, child molestation, child sex abuse, child sex trafficking, prostitution, hardcore porn, the contraction of most STDs.

People who defend premarital sex are defending all of those things (simply because they want to have premarital sex with other adults).

Liberals defend premarital sex (in one case: consenting adults having premarital sex). Yet even consensual sex can turn into rape.

Liberals think condoms makes sex safe, just like they think consent makes premarital sex safe, but both give a false sense of security. There is no such thing as safe sex.

What do you call an 8-year-old boy attracted to an 8-year-old girl? Do you call the 8-year-old boy a pedophile? Does he deserve to be gassed?

If the 8-year-old girl is objectively attractive, why would that 8-year-old boy stop being attracted to 8-year-old girls?

If the 8-year-old boy grows up into a 16-year-old boy, and he's still finds that 8-year-old girl attractive, why is he suddenly a pedophile?

And the biggest problem when it comes to pedophiles is premarital sex -- since all child sexual abuse is premarital sex.

Conservatives can be consistent on this. All premarital sex is wrong. Only liberals insist that there's nothing wrong with premarital sex (oh, except for rape, illegitimate children who grow up to be criminals, single moms living in poverty, sex trafficking, sexual assault, child sex abuse, prostitution, hardcore pornography, the spread of most STDs, and marriage-wrecking affairs).

...

Men don't need second wives anymore snes modern medicine has reduced mortality rate of giving birth.

Who said anything about second wives? This is about the age gap.

>big brown cocks
>pakis

Child predators with 4.5" erect cocks that look like a cat turd.

The age cap was common in the past because men had to remarry after losing their first wife. It's not as common anymore hence why the age gab has become taboo.

This.

out of the norm relationships suffer most from the outside, from ignorant people who call names and shame for it. Many youngsters who had relationships with older people say, once they grow up, that it is even harder to deal with the projections they are thrown at.
People who constantly talk in terms of (((how terrible that must have been))) do even more damage than the past experience with an older partner.

It's funny that most people on Cred Forums vehemently support feminist age of consent legislation.

True Cred Forumsacks know that the state has no business here.

Me on the right.

No. I would argue the age gap was common in the past because people realized that puberty is what makes women able to bear children.

The whole phenomenon of women working and going to college and waiting until 27 to get married and having their first children in their late 20s/early 30s is purely a modern invention of feminism, and is also a total denial of biological truths.

The age gap has become taboo because when liberals destigmatized premarital sex, they had to invent some new boundary for it, so they picked "consent", and age of consent laws are totally arbitrary. Age of consent laws came into being in the UK due to child prostitutes (which is another instance of premarital sex).

Nowadays, people assume that people are just looking for casual sex, so they view men attracted to teens (which includes all men) as predators. But it was allowing premarital sex to be socially acceptable that created child predators.

As far as I'm concerned, all age of consent legislation should be abolished, and all premarital sex should be criminalized. If parents are fine with their daughter marrying a guy, who is society to interfere? Although there is a difference between selling your daughter off, and letting her marry who she wants.

Liberals will bitch and moan, "how dare you interfere in the lives of consenting adults", but that's because they're selfish idiots. Even consensual sex between adults can turn into sexual assault.

All premarital sex is wrong. Only liberals insist that there's nothing wrong with premarital sex (oh, except for rape, illegitimate children who grow up to be criminals, single moms living in poverty, sex trafficking, sexual assault, child sex abuse, prostitution, hardcore pornography, the spread of most STDs, and marriage-wrecking affairs).

>it's an NCAN post

If you're not NCAN you're remarkably similar.

I don't think it's right to criminalize premarital sex between consenting individuals. That's mad levels of statism and state enforced morality to me.

I don't know what that acronym means. But all laws are "state enforced morality."

Putting aside for a moment what "consent" means (in common usage vs legal usage). Even if you think premarital sex between consenting adults can never be wrong, what about cheating? What about adultery? What about prostitution?

I would argue one of the biggest motivations of domestic violence against women, or the murder of women, is a woman cheating and having consensual sex with another man. Cheating is consensual sex, and cheating often leads to murder. I don't think adultery is even illegal in the West anymore.

Then you've got women having consensual sex, but maybe they don't consent to anal sex, and then it becomes rape.

You also have people who insist that a woman who has consumed any alcohol (or any intoxicant whatsoever) cannot consent to sex. That leads to the whole "sex I regretted = rape" trend, where years go by and a woman decides later on that it was rape.

Marriage is clearly defined. Consent is much more vague (and arbitrary, and age of consent laws vary from state to state and nation to nation, proving that age of consent laws are totally arbitrary).

All premarital sex is morally wrong. It includes: all rape (except marital rape), bastard children born to single mothers, sex trafficking, child molestation, child sex abuse, child sex trafficking, prostitution, hardcore porn, the contraction of most STDs. Even abortions can be traced back to premarital sex.

Consenting adults cannot do whatever they want to each other. If two adults agree to murder each other, a crime has still occurred.

Not really. If you believe in the "no victim no crime", sort of thinking or the NAP.

>Even if you think premarital sex between consenting adults can never be wrong, what about cheating? What about adultery? What about prostitution?

They can be wrong but that doesn't mean the state should have a hand in any kind of punishment or law regarding them.

>Consenting adults cannot do whatever they want to each other.

I disagree. It's none of yours or my business.

>Not really. If you believe in the "no victim no crime", sort of thinking or the NAP.

Two people murdered makes two murder victims. Even if they had a murder pact (and if it's not in writing, with a signed witness, how would you ever know?), they still probably have parents, siblings, family members, friends, cowokers, etc, all affected by their death. No person is an island.

That goes back to, how can you prove consent without a signed contract? Marriage is a signed contract. Consent is vague, nebulous, he said/she said, ephemeral.

>They can be wrong but that doesn't mean the state should have a hand in any kind of punishment or law regarding them.

One of the biggest reasons violence is committed against women is because when the law offers no recompense for harm done (like, say, when a wife cheats on her spouse, or when a girlfriend cheats on her boyfriend), then justice is relegated to to vigilante justice (men taking the law into their own hands).

If the law will not punish cheating or adultery, that only leaves violence. You can certainly criminalize violence, but if you allow the thing that keeps causing violence, that's a contributing factor.

And maybe you think prostitutes lead healthy happy lives, but they don't.

>I disagree. It's none of yours or my business.

No.

It's funny how liberals (and libertarians, who are really just liberals) trump this thinking "ain't nobody's business if you do", but that really only goes for hermits, living off-grid, out of society. Living alone in the wild, there are no laws.

But to live in a society means there are laws you have to follow, and a lot of what you do IS other people's business.

Consenting adults should not be allowed to do whatever they want to each other.

You think cannibals and people who want to be eaten should be allowed to meet up online and do the deed?

If you consent and want to do something you're not a victim. If you suffer and consent to euthanizing yourself you're not a victim.

I can see the argument from a practical standpoint when you speak of unless it's in writing and what not however. That does make sense.

>That goes back to, how can you prove consent without a signed contract

with a yes or no, with that logic everything in life would need a signed contract.


>But to live in a society means there are laws you have to follow, and a lot of what you do IS other people's business.

No it's fucking not. For instance it's none of your business that I jerked it to unteralterbach over two dozen times in a week, but people would still criminalize that, plenty would.


You're just using the old tired "you didnt build that!" argument essentially, like Warren likes.

>You think cannibals and people who want to be eaten should be allowed to meet up online and do the deed?

It's telling that you have to rush to such extremes. Theoretically yes, but again there is a practical point about consent when one or both parties die in the action.

Each doubtful child should be tested by a jury of men.
If they believe themselves to be girls, the 12 men line up and fuck the shit out of them for a couple of months continuously.
If they aren't pregnant by the end of it, they aren't female and must accept this fact.

There isn't a more scientific method than this.

Marrying a man and having a happy life together is likely much less traumatizing than having dopey teenage boys use you for sex.

Women know their virginity has value and we tell them to give that shit up for nothing. They feel cheated. Then they fuck guy after guy until the sex is nothing to them but pleasure.

Girls should marry and breed in their teens. That is when they are most prepared for it in their life and starting early means they have a chance to have higher totals.

A 33 year old woman can have serious problems conceiving even her second child.

>If you consent and want to do something you're not a victim. If you suffer and consent to euthanizing yourself you're not a victim.

That assumes people always know what they want, when they want it. If that was true, regret would not exist. Many women consent to sex, regret it later, and later say it wasn't consensual.

If you kill yourself to end your suffering, you're not a victim. But you may create other victims with your death, inflicting emotional pain, trauma.

>with a yes or no, with that logic everything in life would need a signed contract.

If consent is purely verbal, then you get he said/she said situations. She says it was rape, he says it was consensual.

Sex within marriage does have a contract.

>No it's fucking not.
>You're just using the old tired "you didnt build that!" argument essentially, like Warren likes.

It depends on how your actions affect others.

And Warren has a point. No man is an island. And not even forever alone virgins act in a way that has no ripple effects.

>It's telling that you have to rush to such extremes.

Consensual cannibalism is just one of many examples that derive from the assumption that "consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want to each other."

Should consenting adults be allowed to inject Krokodil into each other? No.

Much of the law is about reducing harm, reducing pain, reducing suffering. Premarital sex, whether liberals want to admit it or not, leads to all kinds of pain and suffering. Not only child sexual abuse. But adults cheating on each other.

Two people can consent to do something, while a third person does not consent. A person can say "I don't consent to you having sex with other people." But in a liberal's mind, they have no say.

The assumptions behind allowing premarital sex to happen are morally bankrupt. And they lead to thinks like Catholic priests sexually abusing boys, which liberals blame on religion, instead of premarital sex.

Infant mortality is higher in under aged mothers too.

For a doc' teenage deliveries are a cakewalk. They're the EASIEST deliveries.
When I say teen I don't mean 13, right? There is a time where the girl can conceive but her body isn't really ready.
But for an average 16 year old? Easiest and most risk-free time for her to have a kid in her life.
Every year after their teens they're just getting fatter, older, more slowly healing and generally less healthy.

It's better to have someone be able to decide for themselves and maybe regret it then have people up top commanding you and telling you what to want.

>If you kill yourself to end your suffering, you're not a victim. But you may create other victims with your death, inflicting emotional pain, trauma.

Indirect vague harm does not a victim make. It is a bad thing to lay claim over someone's life and say you have more of a right to them and their decisions than they do.


>if consent is purely verbal

For god sake be reasonable, no one expects written consent to consume undercooked meat either yet people do it all the time. It is unpractical and unreasonable to assume written consent requirement for sex and many other actions. It's just absurd.

>sex within marriage does not have a contract

There is still nothing stopping a woman from crying rape like you mentioned.


>Should consenting adults be allowed to inject Krokodil into each other? No.


You say this like it's only logical to assume everyone will agree with you.
Stop assuming.

>Two people can consent to do something, while a third person does not consent. A person can say "I don't consent to you having sex with other people." But in a liberal's mind, they have no say.

because unless the third person is fucking having sex with them why should their consent matter? If your wife is a whore and cheats on you then fucking dump her, this isnt a matter for the fucking state.

I would really like to see your results on a political compass, you have to be so authoritarian with the way you're speaking.

Where? In Africa where they're all starving to death?

Also consider where that infant mortality comes from. What are the circumstances?

Probably shit like fatass secret-pregnant 15 year old black girls delivering in a public toilet and drowning their baby so they don't have to deal with the consequences. Or doing drugs and killing the fetus.

>It's better to have someone be able to decide for themselves and maybe regret it then have people up top commanding you and telling you what to want.

No. That's like saying it's better to let people drive whatever speed they want and maybe regret it than have people telling them there's a speed limit, with consequences for breaking it.

>Indirect vague harm does not a victim make.

Sure it does. You think all the soldiers who witnessed horrible shit in war and come home with PTSD were all injured? Do you even know what psychological trauma is?

The law limits everyone's decisions (or at least gives consequences for making certain decisions).

>It is unpractical and unreasonable to assume written consent requirement for sex and many other actions.

It is unreasonable to require written consent for sex. That's why limiting sex to marriage is the only reasonable action.

Liberals say sex should only be about consent, then let women have the only say (which can be truth or lie).

>There is still nothing stopping a woman from crying rape like you mentioned.

Rape can happen in marriage, but most rapes don't.

>You say this like it's only logical to assume everyone will agree with you.

No, I'm saying what I think. Consenting adults should not be allowed to inject Krokodil into each other. It harms both of them.

>because unless the third person is fucking having sex with them why should their consent matter? If your wife is a whore and cheats on you then fucking dump her, this isnt a matter for the fucking state.

Or he kills her, like so many scorned men do. If the law offers no recourse, violence is the only recourse.

The third person is obviously the significant other not wanting their partner cheating on them. Why should their lack of consent matter? Because relationships have obligations, duties, expectations, agreements.

Getting braces as a teen really is child abuse

>tfw mom was 33 when she got me
no wonder i'm a failure ;_;

Also, the idea that premarital sex between consenting adults "doesn't affect anyone else" is disproven by the reality of STDs (which are usually spread by premarital sex).

>that pic

Its clearly his sister. If not then I envy that lad, I'd love nothing more than to be a qt girl, but I'm naturally far too buff to pull it off.

Anyone against the girl in OP pic is a fucking faggot

What did he mean by this?