The time in life where you’re most likely to experience sexuality and get laid. And instead you spend it exploring sexuality with a loved one. I mean… it could have been worse.
Yeah, I’d say so. At 22 the human brain isn’t even fully developed. Tim and his wife are children acting out some theatrics inculcated by their (almost always) religious community.
Then again, I live in an American state that embraces education and critical thinking, so my assumption is ol Tim is from Utah, or some other regressive theocratic place where they’d rather nip autonomy in the bud and tether young people to a prescribed way of life that hasn’t otherwise existed outside of these antideluvian pockets for the last 70 years.
People throughout history have been married way younger.
It’s only a very recent phenomenon in 90% of the world that people don’t get married by 22. Even go back to the 80s and 90s which weren’t that long ago - getting married under 25 was exceptionally common
I used to think the women of the past were all married young or spinsters, from reading little house on the prairie and other books. But looked up my ancestors on that Mormon website and was surprised to find that most were 28, 29. Even going pretty far back. This was mostly the US (and this area before unification) and southern Europe though, don’t know that it can be extrapolated. I just didn’t expect it.
Even then would be pretty recent considering human history, and I have a feeling that like you said that’s very narrowed down through both region and religion.
Though funnily enough I grew up (middle school and high school) with kids from 2 different Mormon families as two of my closest friends, and knew kids from 2 others. Each of those 4 families had a minimum of 5 kids, and each one of those kids as far as I know, both guys and girls, got married by 23.
But it was normal in Europe to be betrothed as young as 5, and married at 12 or 13 for centuries.
If you go to the east, Akbar the Great was married off at 9.
Yeah but I think “marriage” like that was a lot different from what we consider it to be now. More of a way to link families, not love matches or even “teams” on their own. Like it wasn’t for them, they were resources parents traded around in marriages and also fosterings, right?
yes mostly it was just a nobility thing. common people didn’t do it i think.
monarchs and earls and such would “marry” their children to children of other monarchs, to establish peace contracts through becoming related by blood. These kids were expected to carry (some) children, but AFAIK it was extremely common for them to have affairs with other people as well, so it was more a formal thing and less a “true love” affair.
as for common people, though, marriage at 12 was common as well, just that they could more often choose so themselves. so, in some sense, i guess they were the “happier” people :)
Edit: ok so i just looked it up. The minimum age of marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys throughout large parts of medieval Europe. However, that didn’t mean they married that young. Rather, they married when they could afford it as sustaining a family required resources. So, the better economically the family was doing, the sooner the kids could (and often would) marry.
this sounds kind of… completely crazy to be honest
also, isn’t the human brain fully developed in most people by the age of 21? or it’s 25, i dont remember. but even if it is 25, 22 is really close. i see no problem in marrying at that age
Is that strange where you are from?
Indeed. Here most people are still either getting their education or just starting with work.
I got married while in school and just before starting my internship. Going through school married is awesome.
The time in life where you’re most likely to experience sexuality and get laid. And instead you spend it exploring sexuality with a loved one. I mean… it could have been worse.
In Lesotho that’s practically middle-aged.
Yeah, I’d say so. At 22 the human brain isn’t even fully developed. Tim and his wife are children acting out some theatrics inculcated by their (almost always) religious community. Then again, I live in an American state that embraces education and critical thinking, so my assumption is ol Tim is from Utah, or some other regressive theocratic place where they’d rather nip autonomy in the bud and tether young people to a prescribed way of life that hasn’t otherwise existed outside of these antideluvian pockets for the last 70 years.
But I’m probably reading too much into it.
This reads like a 16 year old posting a pseudo intellectual argument so they can feel smart.
“Brain is only mature when it is no longer developing, that is, when it is stagnant and decaying”
lol, ok.
People throughout history have been married way younger.
It’s only a very recent phenomenon in 90% of the world that people don’t get married by 22. Even go back to the 80s and 90s which weren’t that long ago - getting married under 25 was exceptionally common
I used to think the women of the past were all married young or spinsters, from reading little house on the prairie and other books. But looked up my ancestors on that Mormon website and was surprised to find that most were 28, 29. Even going pretty far back. This was mostly the US (and this area before unification) and southern Europe though, don’t know that it can be extrapolated. I just didn’t expect it.
Even then would be pretty recent considering human history, and I have a feeling that like you said that’s very narrowed down through both region and religion.
Though funnily enough I grew up (middle school and high school) with kids from 2 different Mormon families as two of my closest friends, and knew kids from 2 others. Each of those 4 families had a minimum of 5 kids, and each one of those kids as far as I know, both guys and girls, got married by 23.
But it was normal in Europe to be betrothed as young as 5, and married at 12 or 13 for centuries.
If you go to the east, Akbar the Great was married off at 9.
Yeah but I think “marriage” like that was a lot different from what we consider it to be now. More of a way to link families, not love matches or even “teams” on their own. Like it wasn’t for them, they were resources parents traded around in marriages and also fosterings, right?
yes mostly it was just a nobility thing. common people didn’t do it i think.
monarchs and earls and such would “marry” their children to children of other monarchs, to establish peace contracts through becoming related by blood. These kids were expected to carry (some) children, but AFAIK it was extremely common for them to have affairs with other people as well, so it was more a formal thing and less a “true love” affair.
as for common people, though, marriage at 12 was common as well, just that they could more often choose so themselves. so, in some sense, i guess they were the “happier” people :)
Edit: ok so i just looked it up. The minimum age of marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys throughout large parts of medieval Europe. However, that didn’t mean they married that young. Rather, they married when they could afford it as sustaining a family required resources. So, the better economically the family was doing, the sooner the kids could (and often would) marry.
this sounds kind of… completely crazy to be honest
also, isn’t the human brain fully developed in most people by the age of 21? or it’s 25, i dont remember. but even if it is 25, 22 is really close. i see no problem in marrying at that age
It never really finishes developing, and the 25 number is taken way out of context. There’s no nice number here.
makes sense. i thought most people agreed to the “18 year olds have their brains developed enough to make life-long choices” thing, but i guess not.
of course though, there’s variation and 18, just like 21 and 25, is just an estimate.
lol, solid endorsement
thanks i think?
found Tim