@Joseph Bronski is condoning pedophilia through the guise of an ancient civilization also known for believing slavery was pretty great, because they were all LITERALLY mentally retarded by the copious lead used in the aqueducts that provided EVERYONE'S water.
But sure let's idolize a brain damaged empire that hasn't been relevant in 2000 years because a few of their philosophers weird ass manifestos managed to survive the Library of Alexandria fire, that way we get to own people and fuck kids.
I only skimmed because gross, but it doesn’t seem he takes into account the short lifespans of people in antiquity. It’s not that weird to get married at 12 if you’ll be dead by 35, which was the average life expectancy at the time. Kind of an important detail….
The fact that people are getting married so much later becomes a bit unintentionally funny in Serbia where the word bride (mlada) is just the word for "young" accented differently.
One has to remember the risk of dying in childbirth prior to 1900. Ranges run from 1 in 100 to 1 in 20 or even less - but the more pregnancies (completed or not), the greater the risk of death. All of the things we can now treat - preeclampsia, large for gestational age infants, chorioamnionitis, prolonged labor with resultant hemorrhage -etc, etc. It meant you needed to get a girl at peak fertility and health because every pregnancy reduced that health. Pregnancy draws on every resource that a woman has whether it be micronutrients or macronutrients. With women dying around age 25 to 35 on average in Roman times, the only unmarried women would likely be quite a bit younger. Since modern women are far less likely to die of any cause by age 25, it really isn't an argument to say that a 25 year old man should pursue a 15-year-old girl because they did it in the first century AD. If we are going to argue those sorts of things, then let's go back to "medicine" in Roman times as well. Most people will die of some infection before the age of 5 in that case.
On the contrary, if they did it in Rome and it was fine, it's definitely fine now considering everything is much safer with modern medicine. If two people want to marry, the woman in her teens, the man 5-6 years later, it's historically normal and not your business to persecute them.
I'd argue "everything" is not "much safer" within modern medicine. Joy does indicate doctors can now treat for preeclampsia, larger babies and more dangerous labor due larger babies (often because of gestational diabetes, another modern wonder we can thank industrialized diets for), and more, etc. (which may imply it may be safer for younger girls to have babies), but I'm most interested in what she also said which was, "pregnancy draws on every resource that a woman has" - and this is absolutely true.
While many women have plenty of babies and come out okay, the effects of pregnancy and labor - even just one or two - last a lifetime. I'm not looking for what I've read on teen pregnancy, but there are clear indications if memory serves, that pregnancy before a certain age (and it was not just 15 -) is dangerous. I'd argue sex is also potentially dangerous - mentally, therefore physically - for girls who are only 15 or 16. Even with a good and capable guy. Now, we can argue there are many factors to that such as nutrition, of course, but by and large pregnancy is not simply a physiological phenomenon where one only looks at iron and folate levels. No. It's 9 months of deep introspection for the girl who has any brain and feeling function at all. It's a completely other dimension where even ideas can literally make one feel sick, just like nasty smells (like coffee - when pregnant, or beer - or even chocolate cake) give you vertigo, make you dizzy, and you can literally puke from something that makes you feel off kilter. *Trying to reduce what I just said to a comment about "psychosomatic responses" and traditional hysteria is not going to be anything but obtuse. Pregnancy is literally the 4th dimension. And one would be mistaken to assume this does not and will not affect the husband in the partnership. It absolutely does. One gets through it - of course! But anyone too young to handle it is going to suffer in ways that impact family life, and, this is my own made up statistic, but hey, that's gotta be at least 99% of those under a certain age who have an IQ over a certain point - ESPECIALLY in the face of modernity, and not necessarily because of societal pressures against younger pregnancy, either. The dumber you are, the less introspective you are inclined toward, perhaps it's easier to be pregnant at 15 or 16. In such a case, perhaps you might argue that White men should be gathering their brides from Eritrea or Kenya (?)
I'd also assert, much as I like reading so very much of what you work on and write, and thank you for it, your comment to Joy's perfectly reasonable take that it is "not anyone's business to persecute" a girl (I don't care how mature the person is, if they're 15 in today's world, they're not a woman - anecdotal but: I have 9 nieces and five of them are over 18 - not to mention my oldest daughter who is now 21 - and raised in families where both parents are easily in the high 120s-mid 130s for IQ, and are engineers and mathematicians and such, where they had to do farm work and babysit and study theological texts and history and got jobs at like age 12 - but at 15 you're not a woman. You're not really a girl either, you're something else. You're an adolescent.) - I digress, you go on to say a [girl] "who's in her teens, the man 5-6 years later" reads like a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps that's just my take on it. Apologies if it was not a knee-jerk reaction. And, for what it's worth, such is a bit understandable given your last experience with this issue on Twitter. 100%. And if you yourself are some 21-year-old man (?) and married a 16-year-old (?) perhaps it works for you both. But you are definitely in the minority if such is working for you and for her. Such wouldn't make your research and opinion illegitimate, it's just - incomplete. As Joy suggested, Romans from two thousand years ago at 15 are not Icelanders or Eritreans or Koreans at 15 in 2025. I don't say they were more mature back then or not - I think marriage rituals and customs are just a lot more complex than looking solely at age (although age is a prominent and important feature/factor).
Please consider, while modern medicine does amazing things with surgery, for example, we have traded quite a lot - including the less invasive childbirth we had just 100 years ago (where now something like 1 in 4 births are via C-section which presents complications for a healing new mother, bonding with baby, impact of antibiotics post-op which impacts baby - thrush, candida, lifetime of gut issues/brain issues, etc.) - for these modern conveniences. To argue that if they did it in Rome and it was "fine" (rather ambiguous you'll agree), so now it should be fine is very, very, very (I'd keep adding very but I'll stop here) illogical - and not really the higher caliber of comment I've come to appreciate from your other work. Forgive me - I hope this isn't too off-putting. My thoughts here are certainly growing into book length - but such are said with appreciation for your ongoing efforts, and more meant to be big sistery. I do wonder why you seem to wish to die on this hill.
From what I gathered from classical studies in college and via my own endeavors, aristocratic women in Rome and Athens had virtually no sovereignty at all. They were shut up at home, didn't come out, and this in part was likely a reason men in those civilizations did become pedorasts, in my opinion. Complete lack of balance. Now, you have not suggested shutting women up. However, it's a relevant issue. Marrying younger and younger women may indicate women who are reduced in their capacity to self-actualize. As a White advocate - I find that extremely relevant. I think my ancestors did as well - although they likely wouldn't have put it that way. By self-actualize, I simply mean to understand projection - and so be able to measure and live with a growing understanding of objective reality, and our place within it.
One does not need to have an either or - where women are hooker-Third-Wave-feminists and hate their men and don't get married or have kids until age 40 / or a situation where 16-year-old girls marry 22-year-old guys. There is actually a huge gap at age 20 when one's boyfriend is even 4 years older. When I did it - had a 28-year-old boyfriend - I was 20. It was insane - insane what a difference a few years on his end meant. This last was anecdotal but, note that 16 to 17 is like 5 years (at least) to an adult. Our concepts and understanding of time change. When you're 10, a year is like ten years for someone who's 20. For an infant who has no concept of time, a moment is a year. Or rather, it's never-ending. Time literally changes for teens - whether girls or boys. And consider yourself. How much did you grow, change, become from age 20-22? One grows quite a bit.
So! Perhaps the real issue here is that perhaps you're advocating for men who are much more advanced and capable finding malleable / mold-able girls to hone. If so, perhaps say that. I can see some advantages in that. My husband is just about my age, and it's taken nearly 20 years for us to get on more of an even playing field in many areas. Girls, in many ways, do grow up faster than boys. Again, anecdotal but...
Responding to paragraph 1: if you think you want higher TFR, you have to ignore the costs of pregnancy and just do it. It's nature's way. This has never been an argument against marriage. Further, it's an argument for banning marriage in general, not just marriage to young women.
p2: ". I'd argue sex is also potentially dangerous - mentally, therefore physically - for girls who are only 15 or 16. Even with a good and capable guy. Now, we can argue there are many factors to that such as nutrition, of course, but by and large pregnancy is not simply a physiological phenomenon where one only looks at iron and folate levels. No. It's 9 months of deep introspection for the girl who has any brain and feeling function at all." This deeply contradicts the liberal view of sex and is a good case for banning premarital sex, but not for a high minimum age of marriage.
p3: "if they're 15 in today's world, they're not a woman" It's totally arbitrary how you class this, the development change curve is already concave at 15, its derivative doesn't go to 0 until at least 30. So you can call 20 somethings adolescents under this framework which is what you go on to do. The two consistent positions are 15 and 25 are both adult; or both are adolescent. But in the latter case I would say you must get married as an adolescent; adult is too late. So this is just word games, I don't really care how you class them, 15 is a fine minimum marriage age, at least for smart people.
p4 it's not illogical, allegedly your position is based on harms to the bride. But these are far less today than in Rome. Yet Rome didn't have a minimum age of marriage of 21 or 25. You would expect minimum age of marriage to fall as harms decrease, but instead they rise. I think this is because it's really all about sexual jealousy and ressentiment, not harms or concern for the couples involved.
p5 I'm not a feminist. I support my wife's happiness and self actualization but it's more from the position of a guardian than an equal "partner" as the homosexuals say. Self actualizing involving delaying marriage to old age is dangerously close to the "I found myself on the college cock carousel, now I'm ready to settle down!" meme.
p6 If any of this is true, it sounds pretty romantic to be there for you lifelong wife's most impression leaving years. Why would you want her to be filled with memories of singleness?
p7 Yeah it's also about fertility and high romance. Marrying a 25 year old or older just seems completely unromantic to me. It's called "puppy love" or "missing out on teen love" for a reason.
Prior to 1904, the category of “adolescent” did not exist. They would have been classed as adults. Even “teenagers” as a separate category does not predate 1919.
While semantics can be helpful in determination, in this case I find what they were or were not called prior to 1919 mostly irrelevant. Concepts and social acceptance of new norms do change with understanding/misunderstanding, yes. But on the whole, whether they are pre- or post-masturation, a female of 12 in 1900 was not as developed as a female of 15. Why are we not advocating for a female of 12 who is post-maturation being available for "puppy love" and potential childbearing? She must wish to be tied to a male for her entire life as memories of "singlehood" aren't romantic or fulfilling. This is not a feminist position. This is common sense. For me and my position, there are obvious reasons we do not consider a girl who's started her period at age 9, a woman. There are reasons I do not consider a girl of 15 a woman. This person is still a girl even though she is post-maturation.
The average life span was much shorter than modern man. So, they needed to produce children to work and take care of them as they aged out of farming etc. The human brain isn't fully developed until at least the mid-twenties, Romans did not know that. We could compare the marriage and sexual practices of moderns with many different tribal societies, some of their practices, considered normal to them, are horrifying to us. In some societies, rape was no big deal, it is to us.
No ma'am, the brain does not stop developing in the mid twenties. It develops more gray matter until the thirties. By that logic, should we not allow girls in their twenties to be married? I'm afraid that's nonsensical, ma'am.
It is nonsensical. It is equally nonsensical to not acknowledge the severe drawbacks for a marriage our people wish to be successful long-term - in not just permitting, but actively encouraging girls of middling teenage years to marry and procreate.
The development of the human brain is irrelevant. Little girls should be married as per the will of her father and the will of the law given by the emperor.
It is true that the hypothalamus does not fully develop until the mid-20s. This is one of the objections parents in my community have had to so-called "blended learning" which is a growing trend nationwide (whereby students are taught via computer and most content, assignment submission, testing, etc. is done online).
I'd add, too, seems like our Germanic "pagan" forebears - if we have to use that umbrella non-term term - married closer to late teens, very early 20s. The men and the women. As we know, they had very hardcore ideals about monogamy, chastity, and loyalty between spouses. I'd prefer following their example rather than the Romans, personally. If you want a civilization where there are a lot of beautiful statues created and aqueducts and particular types of study and rhetoric going on, and you want to advocate that men need docile and generally slightly dumber (than their husbands) females at home as partners to make such happen - then do that. Perhaps that's partly how such was achieved in Rome. Perhaps not. If so - such is not without trades. Spartan women, on the other hand, had some interesting autonomy and were yet fiercely loyal to their families. And cultural achievements are lasting through story and herbology, star-observation and music and honoring the many facets within our own faces, via our own archetypes. Exploration on the seas. Not only in magnificent temple building and Roman assembly halls. So I still have to wonder what's productive about advocacy of, specifically 15-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 21-year-old men. Or 16-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 22-year-old men. Or 17-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 23-year-old men.
In conclusion - wow... sorry for the essay - my younger brother married his wife when she was 19. He was 21. A sister married at 19, her husband was 21. (Oh wait. She was 18. She got pregnant at 19. She's now in medical school - even though this first baby is now nearly 30. I think she got like 34 on the ACT. She skipped a grade long ago. She's a smarty pants - and yet 18 at the time still seemed very young). Both these couples are still married - the former for now 13 years or so, and the latter for 25+. I have other siblings. We all married before the age of 26. Younger marriages can and do work. But if you marry before 18, the odds you get divorced are as high as if you wait until like age 32 when you're no longer so flexible and bendable to get on with a partner. The sweet spot for most of us seems to be the mid-20s. As fertility is still decently high for women at this point, why would we rush the few years where we can try to assimilate what we know, integrate more areas of projection within our own personalities, and learn a bit? Men do not and cannot teach their children everything. Women provide some of this as well - and women who are mentally healthy and more grown up and are actually women (which means at least 17 imo and are closer to at least 20 - at a minimum), are going to only benefit a marriage, and benefit their men. Because, simply put, they're more likely to be whole.
Marriage is hard enough. Why would you throw in a monkey wrench like - marrying someone of another heritage? Or marrying someone who started her period like one year prior? Girls just aren't put together enough in their middling teens. If men are attracted to this, I get it. But marrying a woman vs a girl provides a man with a challenge that he will have to hone himself to meet. Such women may be less inclined to leave their men if and when those men fail - as we all do on occasion - to meet those challenges.
I'm not sure that's what she stated at all. And not everyone who enjoys your thoughts and writing from time to time, are Christians. This does not mean we are irrelevant or not White advocates.
I cannot fathom anyone (anyone at all) younger than 17 being able to be a wife of integrity - which to me, means someone capable of seeking out and observing objective reality. Beginning too young simply emphasizes the inevitable difficulties in trying to maintain a holistic lifestyle while tied to a partner. This is profoundly anti-White imo.
The whole thrust of the article is really around the dysgenic debate that has been going on for decades, and it centers very much on the effects of fertility, genes and IQ. You are including important facets such as maturity, financial security and a balanced life in the modern world. There is danger when the subject of dysgenics becomes an ideology.
The divorce rate would even be higher than it already is if the marriage age dropped. Doesn't matter, change never stops, we can look back, but we can't live back. Women are far too well educated today to fall for this power play, although, I would say the Taliban are succeeding in subjugating women and keeping them pregnant, housebound and ignorant.
Yes ma'am, most people live lives of fornication until they decide to finally get married and pop out mutationally loaded gamete kids in their thirties, at below replacement level to the point the USA population is going to halve by mid century (fortunately, we have immigrants to replace us) . Then more than half get divorced. Thank God.
The autonomy of Spartan women led directly to the downfall of Sparta. According to custom, Spartan women would inherit property when they married, and keep it if they ever divorced. This was so a woman whose husband divorced her wouldn’t starve; only once women were given the right to divorce men did this become a problem (we have a similar problem with the Family Courts today). By the time of Alexander the Great, the women were “marrying to divorce, and divorcing to marry.” By the time of Rome, Sparta was a shell of its former self.
Thanks for the response. What are your thoughts on the downfall of Athens, who had the opposite position with their women (who were kept at home, always), and a high case of pederasty?
Among the Pumé hunter-gatherers of Venezuela—a population with a later average age of menarche than the US and virtually no access to modern medicine—girls who become pregnant for the first time in their preteens or early teens have reduced lifetime reproductive success due to increased mortality and pregnancy complications. However, girls who have their first pregnancy in their mid-teens (15 to 17) have more reproductive success than those whose first pregnancies occur in their late teens or 20s.
This strongly suggests that relatively early pregnancy is evolutionarily adaptive for women living in an ancestral environment and has been naturally selected for.
"Given parity-specific mortality rates, the optimal strategy to minimize infant mortality and maximize reproductive span is to initiate childbearing in the midteens. Women gain no additional advantage in surviving fertility by delaying childbearing until their late teens."
The more pregnancies a woman has, the greater the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke with aging. That is because pregnancy makes the heart a little larger and thicker each time and doesn't return to pre-pregnancy state. Further, every pregnancy depletes calcium stores in a woman, even if she is taking in adequate calcium. Which is why when you look at what kills women before the age of 45 in westernized countries, pregnancy still has a place. While not as high as accidents or being killed by the male that impregnated them, it still ranks.
Your claim that the heart never fully returns to its pre-pregnancy state is false and is the exception rather than the rule. For most women, cardiovascular changes fully normalize within 6 months after delivery.
"Increased left ventricular mass and chamber size during pregnancy regressed significantly by 6 weeks postpartum, with complete normalization by 6 months in the absence of pathology.”
Pregnancy itself isn't a risk factor for atrial fibrilation or cardiovascular disease, but some pregnancy complications, especially preeclampsia and peripartum cardiomyopathy, are. That's why only women with a history of these conditions, and not all women who have had a child, receive early cardiovascular screening and risk factor management.
More pregnancies do not necessarily mean a higher risk of AFib or stroke decades later. For the vast majority of pregnancies, the heart does recover, and there's no permanent thickening or size increase after each pregnancy.
The only reason the maternal mortality rate in the US is slightly elevated is because obesity among Black women raises the average. If the US had a maternal mortality rate comparable to the UK—which has a lower obesity rate—pregnancy would actually be much safer than being a taxi driver or a farmer:
Spiritual connection transcends Christianity. I don't mean this as an argument against Christianity. I'm just saying - my people in Scandinavia, just for example, likely considered themselves "spiritual" they just wouldn't have used such terms. Their connections with people they liked and mated with would have incorporated that imo
I agree, and religions are full of dogma that are not in alignment with the non-material matrix of love but do hold the idea at least of the supernatural, like many tribal societies. Christianity though has influenced western culture greatly, most mediaeval art was religious in nature, it wasn't until the enlightenment that things started to change.
The general life expectancy was 25-35 in Rome, not just for women. There's no real evidence that women had a lower life expectancy. Also, that life expectancy is only that low because infant mortality rates massively drop it down, and not because adults were actually dying on average in that age range. If that actually was the life expectancy for adults, all the famous romans who were recorded dying at ages 50-80 would be quite the anomaly. Anastasius I even made it to 87 years old.
The Romans were living in very different circumstances than we are today. Roman fathers had authority over the marriage of their children, and preferred to marry their daughters off early because daughters were a liability. Roman men also spent much of their younger years in the military. The survival rate of a full 20-year tour in the Roman military was around 70%. If they were to marry late, like the Germanics (who did not have to cross continents for wars), their wives would be near menopause by the time they returned
How would you know? Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps you're not. The comment itself was really strongly worded - and I get it may be offensive if you're a guy who thinks it is moral to shack up with teens - which seems to be more often than not a hard "no" from where I stand, but I get that it's a conversation right now in White nationalist circles. We should have this conversation. But let's try a bit harder. The White battle against the opposite sex right now blows - and I'm really fucking tired of it. I can't be the only one. It's anti-White, and we can do better.
This is the field consensus on the actual ages of marriage in the Roman empire. He mentions the law was politically motivated. This is true -- it was higher than the actual norms and not enforced. Not the other way around.
All healthy young bachelors are attracted to teenaged girls. It's easy to see why with evopsych. A monogamous male will evolve to prefer to marry a woman with the maximum number of eggs, given she is ready to become pregnant immediately. This minimizes the investment cost into the marriage (ie paying for a girl when she is too young to bear children) while maximizing marital fitness (men who marry these women will tend to have more children, on average). This age is somewhere in the modern high school age range.
I've found any young bachelor that doesn't follow this law is sexually disordered in some way, usually on the homosexual spectrum. Muscly mommy doms with inverse age gaps are masculine; men who like these are usually always bisexuals. Others may have hormone deficits leading to asexuality.
Proximity is one of the prime drivers in mate selection. Darwin's theory on sexual selection has not been solved. It is superficial when it comes to explaining human mate selection, where childhood imprinting has profound influence, far more than twenty-year-old men desiring women three years older or younger than themselves.
I think people who are scandalized by these facts are confusing their culturally imposed sense of decency with something more innate or objective (being charitable here by ignoring those motivated by jealousy, of both sexes). Sexual attraction has many dimensions, and it’s possible for a man to find a girl sexually appealing in one context but not another. It doesn’t change the fact that there is a context where he is sexually attracted to her.
Also, there’s a big difference between marrying a young girl, having casual sex with contraception, and trafficking them. The first of those three was not uncommon in European colonies, even up to the early 1900s in America. People should research their family tree for at least a handful of generations before throwing around obscene accusations.
While I am in sympathy with questioning why some insist on advocating, seemingly, for up to six year gaps in dating teens from 15 on up - I'd encourage you to question who changed, in modern times, how women are treated, and how the changes we see now (some of them) came about. White men have literally given women the moon.
My parents had a 10 year age gap and met when my mother was 16. My father waited until the day she turned 17 to start dating her, because that was the age of consent. This means a legal technicality prevented me from having an extra sibling.
Unless the guy is using contraception or the girl uses the courts to leave with his kids and his money, I don’t see anything morbid or exploitative about these sorts of relationships.
No, they have not, women fought for their freedoms. Although if you attend Grace Evangelical Church you will see the thousands of women that remain bound.
We can count on change. Most men could not read or write and survived and provided using the sweat of their brow and pure brawn. Those attributes are no longer relevant. Women are thriving in the sphere of education and tend to hold the reins, and men are feeling that shift. However, there are 8 billion people on the planet, and AI will render most people's skills, both male and female obsolete. We don't need to replace a human workforce. Perhaps there will be more time for us to figure out what to do next, maybe spend far more time in nature, and take the kids along.
Cool, but your 12-14 year old daughter should be the test case for how based and normal marrying her to a guy in his 20s would be in the modern world. Marry her off and report back.
I know several women who have beautiful, healthy children, conceived in their late forties and early fifties, they froze their eggs until they met suitable partners.
Yeah, that's the way if you for some reason can't avoid having kids late. At least the kids are healthy.
But it's still a terrible idea. We have a large age range among the parents we're friends with, and the difference in energy level is just obvious. Sleeplessness, sickness, just plain playing is all much easier when you're young yourself. Not to mention that a society were you have kids with 40+ implies becoming a grandparent only after 80! There's a decent chance you won't even see your grandkids at all, let alone help out with raising or watching them grow.
No matter how much I think about it, having kids in your 20s seems like the best middle ground. That's enough time to grow up and finish school, and you have soo much free time anyway when studying. It's insane how much people waste on pointless time sinks just because they don't have anything better to do.
And honestly, looking at my kids, I'd rather they have kids too early than too late or none at all. In the former case, we'll just help out, and get to see them grow up.
Historically women stopped having kids at menopause. In fact, the Church prevented birth control. It was normal to have kids in their 40's. It is only a modern notion to think it is dangerous, since childbirth has become a profitable medical intervention. Richard Gere, Robert Deniro, Kevin Costner had children way past their forties, and those kids may not grow up to have their fathers. Women in their forties have plenty of energy to raise a kid or two. Women in their forties trying to raise seven, eight and nine children had to rely on the younger ones to help.
That doesn't sound natural. Women's fertility begins to decline at 25 and the number of eggs they produce exponentially declines every 5 years afterwards
Yeah, my mother had a baby at 40. My grandmothers too. Several aunts at 38-42. I had one later on. So... while you're correct about it being "unnatural", this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing in and of itself to freeze one's eggs. Fertility these days sucks. Not all of us meet our spouses at the perfect time. That's reality. Better that these women had kids likely, than not at all.
The naturalistic fallacy says everything natural is good, not always. Sometimes intervention improves on nature, such as an antibiotic for a severe infection.
Roughly 0.025% to 0.05% of all women freeze their eggs. Of those, ~10–12% use them
So: 0.0003 × 0.10 = 0.00003 = 0.003% of all women do this.
If it became higher, then sure you could argue this is a realistic intervention. Everything indicates that so far nobody is actually doing it, even with decades of climbing rates of marriage and delayed births.
I don't see why it would become a substitute for natural conception. But, for the women I know who now enjoy having healthy kids because they did choose to freeze their eggs, it has been a Godsend for them. I don't see it as a negative.
The problem is the quality of eggs and sperm decrease with age. Even if they are more or less healthy, the overall negative dysgenic load in the gene pool is being increased every time this occurs. You're damaging the gene pool of your descendants by doing this.
They froze their eggs in their 30's though. I don't know if the sperm was frozen, because yes, older eggs and sperm are more prone to genetic defects which show up differently depending on whether they come from the egg or sperm. As far as women historically having kids in their forties, they had no access to birth control. Even if they started in their twenties and had six kids by their mid-thirties, those younger kids are at higher risk of physiological problems. Having lots of children is damaging to the mother's cells also. So, the ideal seems to be, have a few kids when young and stop. Stanford - "Some studies show that while there is a higher risk of pregnancy problems in older women, their babies may not have more problems than babies of younger women. This is more likely when women get prenatal care and give birth in a healthcare facility ready to care for high-risk mothers and babies." Giving birth is big business, and although some fears are legitimate, the medical industry makes money through fear. I think if people want to get flu shots, go ahead, but they are advertised non-stop as though one is in mortal danger if they don't take them, no mention of the downsides of course.
If you're defining "fertility" as "chance of conception within a given time frame of trying within repeated unprotected sex," it does not seem to begin to decline at 25; women who try in their late 20s are as likely to get pregnant within six or twelve months as women who try in their early 20s. The noticeable decline seems to start at 35 - which women are already told in clinical settings. https://ro.co/fertility/female-fertility-age-chart/
Bronski, Azealia Banks twitter atm is a goldmine of hilarity re: AOC. some negress pop legend debating about it. p hilarious, involves discussions of 'teen' capacity to consent, and historic norms.
Very nice posts and all, even had it be pinned on my space. However, why insist on X? Feels like a losing battle. It already censors too much. You also ignored my invite to join Matrix, where you could have actual free speech.
As for my view on the topic: I wish the age of marriage for girls was lowered to 7 or 8, to allow for Eunice Winstead-like marriage. Removing it altogether could be good as well. It's important to never allow it to be raised past 12 ever again. That's when you start getting the homosexual cuckolds responding to your posts negatively.
Also, your earlier view of 15 being nice due to brain development is feminist. We shouldn't wait for women to mature, otherwise we would wait until they die.
I sat on the Maternal Mortality Board of Tennessee and have been an obstetric and trauma anesthesiologist since the late 1990s having worked at a couple of the busiest trauma centers in the US. Mortality associated with childbirth has always plagued women of childbearing age, much as acts of stupidity plague young men. Not only within my ancestral family were women lost to childbirth, but in visiting old graveyards wherever I travel, one sees headstones with the very words "died in childbirth" carved into them. For young girls - 16 and less, there is greater risks with pregnancy. I have taken care of girls as young as 10 who've been impregnated. They have a greater risk of preeclampsia and molar pregnancy than those who are older. A girl a grew up with was raped at age 12 by a fellow military man of her older brother. By age 18, after 4 children, she looked like a 40 year-old-woman with sagging breasts, flabby belly and thighs and a number of missing teeth....because pregnancy does suck the calcium right out of you. While she recognized me, I did not recognize her. So, while the Romans - or whatever ancient cultural group you'd like to pick - made 12 year old girls wives - we don't need to go that route in our current age. Maintaining fertility doesn't require that one be 14.
@Joseph Bronski is condoning pedophilia through the guise of an ancient civilization also known for believing slavery was pretty great, because they were all LITERALLY mentally retarded by the copious lead used in the aqueducts that provided EVERYONE'S water.
But sure let's idolize a brain damaged empire that hasn't been relevant in 2000 years because a few of their philosophers weird ass manifestos managed to survive the Library of Alexandria fire, that way we get to own people and fuck kids.
weirdo.
I only skimmed because gross, but it doesn’t seem he takes into account the short lifespans of people in antiquity. It’s not that weird to get married at 12 if you’ll be dead by 35, which was the average life expectancy at the time. Kind of an important detail….
Your profile picture and blog banner indicate mental illness and high mutational load. Your tone of speech is catty and hysterical. Opinion discarded.
The words are more important than the profile pic, dingus. Did you come to read or look at pictures? Go back to Instagram
def mack
yet one more
stack stacker
must check out
check.
Oh, oh, do me next.
Your lack of profile picture, name and comment indicate you are a pedophile. Opinion discarded.
The fact that people are getting married so much later becomes a bit unintentionally funny in Serbia where the word bride (mlada) is just the word for "young" accented differently.
One has to remember the risk of dying in childbirth prior to 1900. Ranges run from 1 in 100 to 1 in 20 or even less - but the more pregnancies (completed or not), the greater the risk of death. All of the things we can now treat - preeclampsia, large for gestational age infants, chorioamnionitis, prolonged labor with resultant hemorrhage -etc, etc. It meant you needed to get a girl at peak fertility and health because every pregnancy reduced that health. Pregnancy draws on every resource that a woman has whether it be micronutrients or macronutrients. With women dying around age 25 to 35 on average in Roman times, the only unmarried women would likely be quite a bit younger. Since modern women are far less likely to die of any cause by age 25, it really isn't an argument to say that a 25 year old man should pursue a 15-year-old girl because they did it in the first century AD. If we are going to argue those sorts of things, then let's go back to "medicine" in Roman times as well. Most people will die of some infection before the age of 5 in that case.
On the contrary, if they did it in Rome and it was fine, it's definitely fine now considering everything is much safer with modern medicine. If two people want to marry, the woman in her teens, the man 5-6 years later, it's historically normal and not your business to persecute them.
I'd argue "everything" is not "much safer" within modern medicine. Joy does indicate doctors can now treat for preeclampsia, larger babies and more dangerous labor due larger babies (often because of gestational diabetes, another modern wonder we can thank industrialized diets for), and more, etc. (which may imply it may be safer for younger girls to have babies), but I'm most interested in what she also said which was, "pregnancy draws on every resource that a woman has" - and this is absolutely true.
While many women have plenty of babies and come out okay, the effects of pregnancy and labor - even just one or two - last a lifetime. I'm not looking for what I've read on teen pregnancy, but there are clear indications if memory serves, that pregnancy before a certain age (and it was not just 15 -) is dangerous. I'd argue sex is also potentially dangerous - mentally, therefore physically - for girls who are only 15 or 16. Even with a good and capable guy. Now, we can argue there are many factors to that such as nutrition, of course, but by and large pregnancy is not simply a physiological phenomenon where one only looks at iron and folate levels. No. It's 9 months of deep introspection for the girl who has any brain and feeling function at all. It's a completely other dimension where even ideas can literally make one feel sick, just like nasty smells (like coffee - when pregnant, or beer - or even chocolate cake) give you vertigo, make you dizzy, and you can literally puke from something that makes you feel off kilter. *Trying to reduce what I just said to a comment about "psychosomatic responses" and traditional hysteria is not going to be anything but obtuse. Pregnancy is literally the 4th dimension. And one would be mistaken to assume this does not and will not affect the husband in the partnership. It absolutely does. One gets through it - of course! But anyone too young to handle it is going to suffer in ways that impact family life, and, this is my own made up statistic, but hey, that's gotta be at least 99% of those under a certain age who have an IQ over a certain point - ESPECIALLY in the face of modernity, and not necessarily because of societal pressures against younger pregnancy, either. The dumber you are, the less introspective you are inclined toward, perhaps it's easier to be pregnant at 15 or 16. In such a case, perhaps you might argue that White men should be gathering their brides from Eritrea or Kenya (?)
I'd also assert, much as I like reading so very much of what you work on and write, and thank you for it, your comment to Joy's perfectly reasonable take that it is "not anyone's business to persecute" a girl (I don't care how mature the person is, if they're 15 in today's world, they're not a woman - anecdotal but: I have 9 nieces and five of them are over 18 - not to mention my oldest daughter who is now 21 - and raised in families where both parents are easily in the high 120s-mid 130s for IQ, and are engineers and mathematicians and such, where they had to do farm work and babysit and study theological texts and history and got jobs at like age 12 - but at 15 you're not a woman. You're not really a girl either, you're something else. You're an adolescent.) - I digress, you go on to say a [girl] "who's in her teens, the man 5-6 years later" reads like a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps that's just my take on it. Apologies if it was not a knee-jerk reaction. And, for what it's worth, such is a bit understandable given your last experience with this issue on Twitter. 100%. And if you yourself are some 21-year-old man (?) and married a 16-year-old (?) perhaps it works for you both. But you are definitely in the minority if such is working for you and for her. Such wouldn't make your research and opinion illegitimate, it's just - incomplete. As Joy suggested, Romans from two thousand years ago at 15 are not Icelanders or Eritreans or Koreans at 15 in 2025. I don't say they were more mature back then or not - I think marriage rituals and customs are just a lot more complex than looking solely at age (although age is a prominent and important feature/factor).
Please consider, while modern medicine does amazing things with surgery, for example, we have traded quite a lot - including the less invasive childbirth we had just 100 years ago (where now something like 1 in 4 births are via C-section which presents complications for a healing new mother, bonding with baby, impact of antibiotics post-op which impacts baby - thrush, candida, lifetime of gut issues/brain issues, etc.) - for these modern conveniences. To argue that if they did it in Rome and it was "fine" (rather ambiguous you'll agree), so now it should be fine is very, very, very (I'd keep adding very but I'll stop here) illogical - and not really the higher caliber of comment I've come to appreciate from your other work. Forgive me - I hope this isn't too off-putting. My thoughts here are certainly growing into book length - but such are said with appreciation for your ongoing efforts, and more meant to be big sistery. I do wonder why you seem to wish to die on this hill.
From what I gathered from classical studies in college and via my own endeavors, aristocratic women in Rome and Athens had virtually no sovereignty at all. They were shut up at home, didn't come out, and this in part was likely a reason men in those civilizations did become pedorasts, in my opinion. Complete lack of balance. Now, you have not suggested shutting women up. However, it's a relevant issue. Marrying younger and younger women may indicate women who are reduced in their capacity to self-actualize. As a White advocate - I find that extremely relevant. I think my ancestors did as well - although they likely wouldn't have put it that way. By self-actualize, I simply mean to understand projection - and so be able to measure and live with a growing understanding of objective reality, and our place within it.
One does not need to have an either or - where women are hooker-Third-Wave-feminists and hate their men and don't get married or have kids until age 40 / or a situation where 16-year-old girls marry 22-year-old guys. There is actually a huge gap at age 20 when one's boyfriend is even 4 years older. When I did it - had a 28-year-old boyfriend - I was 20. It was insane - insane what a difference a few years on his end meant. This last was anecdotal but, note that 16 to 17 is like 5 years (at least) to an adult. Our concepts and understanding of time change. When you're 10, a year is like ten years for someone who's 20. For an infant who has no concept of time, a moment is a year. Or rather, it's never-ending. Time literally changes for teens - whether girls or boys. And consider yourself. How much did you grow, change, become from age 20-22? One grows quite a bit.
So! Perhaps the real issue here is that perhaps you're advocating for men who are much more advanced and capable finding malleable / mold-able girls to hone. If so, perhaps say that. I can see some advantages in that. My husband is just about my age, and it's taken nearly 20 years for us to get on more of an even playing field in many areas. Girls, in many ways, do grow up faster than boys. Again, anecdotal but...
Responding to paragraph 1: if you think you want higher TFR, you have to ignore the costs of pregnancy and just do it. It's nature's way. This has never been an argument against marriage. Further, it's an argument for banning marriage in general, not just marriage to young women.
p2: ". I'd argue sex is also potentially dangerous - mentally, therefore physically - for girls who are only 15 or 16. Even with a good and capable guy. Now, we can argue there are many factors to that such as nutrition, of course, but by and large pregnancy is not simply a physiological phenomenon where one only looks at iron and folate levels. No. It's 9 months of deep introspection for the girl who has any brain and feeling function at all." This deeply contradicts the liberal view of sex and is a good case for banning premarital sex, but not for a high minimum age of marriage.
p3: "if they're 15 in today's world, they're not a woman" It's totally arbitrary how you class this, the development change curve is already concave at 15, its derivative doesn't go to 0 until at least 30. So you can call 20 somethings adolescents under this framework which is what you go on to do. The two consistent positions are 15 and 25 are both adult; or both are adolescent. But in the latter case I would say you must get married as an adolescent; adult is too late. So this is just word games, I don't really care how you class them, 15 is a fine minimum marriage age, at least for smart people.
p4 it's not illogical, allegedly your position is based on harms to the bride. But these are far less today than in Rome. Yet Rome didn't have a minimum age of marriage of 21 or 25. You would expect minimum age of marriage to fall as harms decrease, but instead they rise. I think this is because it's really all about sexual jealousy and ressentiment, not harms or concern for the couples involved.
p5 I'm not a feminist. I support my wife's happiness and self actualization but it's more from the position of a guardian than an equal "partner" as the homosexuals say. Self actualizing involving delaying marriage to old age is dangerously close to the "I found myself on the college cock carousel, now I'm ready to settle down!" meme.
p6 If any of this is true, it sounds pretty romantic to be there for you lifelong wife's most impression leaving years. Why would you want her to be filled with memories of singleness?
p7 Yeah it's also about fertility and high romance. Marrying a 25 year old or older just seems completely unromantic to me. It's called "puppy love" or "missing out on teen love" for a reason.
Prior to 1904, the category of “adolescent” did not exist. They would have been classed as adults. Even “teenagers” as a separate category does not predate 1919.
While semantics can be helpful in determination, in this case I find what they were or were not called prior to 1919 mostly irrelevant. Concepts and social acceptance of new norms do change with understanding/misunderstanding, yes. But on the whole, whether they are pre- or post-masturation, a female of 12 in 1900 was not as developed as a female of 15. Why are we not advocating for a female of 12 who is post-maturation being available for "puppy love" and potential childbearing? She must wish to be tied to a male for her entire life as memories of "singlehood" aren't romantic or fulfilling. This is not a feminist position. This is common sense. For me and my position, there are obvious reasons we do not consider a girl who's started her period at age 9, a woman. There are reasons I do not consider a girl of 15 a woman. This person is still a girl even though she is post-maturation.
The average life span was much shorter than modern man. So, they needed to produce children to work and take care of them as they aged out of farming etc. The human brain isn't fully developed until at least the mid-twenties, Romans did not know that. We could compare the marriage and sexual practices of moderns with many different tribal societies, some of their practices, considered normal to them, are horrifying to us. In some societies, rape was no big deal, it is to us.
No ma'am, the brain does not stop developing in the mid twenties. It develops more gray matter until the thirties. By that logic, should we not allow girls in their twenties to be married? I'm afraid that's nonsensical, ma'am.
It is nonsensical. It is equally nonsensical to not acknowledge the severe drawbacks for a marriage our people wish to be successful long-term - in not just permitting, but actively encouraging girls of middling teenage years to marry and procreate.
The development of the human brain is irrelevant. Little girls should be married as per the will of her father and the will of the law given by the emperor.
It is true that the hypothalamus does not fully develop until the mid-20s. This is one of the objections parents in my community have had to so-called "blended learning" which is a growing trend nationwide (whereby students are taught via computer and most content, assignment submission, testing, etc. is done online).
I'd add, too, seems like our Germanic "pagan" forebears - if we have to use that umbrella non-term term - married closer to late teens, very early 20s. The men and the women. As we know, they had very hardcore ideals about monogamy, chastity, and loyalty between spouses. I'd prefer following their example rather than the Romans, personally. If you want a civilization where there are a lot of beautiful statues created and aqueducts and particular types of study and rhetoric going on, and you want to advocate that men need docile and generally slightly dumber (than their husbands) females at home as partners to make such happen - then do that. Perhaps that's partly how such was achieved in Rome. Perhaps not. If so - such is not without trades. Spartan women, on the other hand, had some interesting autonomy and were yet fiercely loyal to their families. And cultural achievements are lasting through story and herbology, star-observation and music and honoring the many facets within our own faces, via our own archetypes. Exploration on the seas. Not only in magnificent temple building and Roman assembly halls. So I still have to wonder what's productive about advocacy of, specifically 15-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 21-year-old men. Or 16-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 22-year-old men. Or 17-year-old girls who find themselves pregnant and married to 23-year-old men.
In conclusion - wow... sorry for the essay - my younger brother married his wife when she was 19. He was 21. A sister married at 19, her husband was 21. (Oh wait. She was 18. She got pregnant at 19. She's now in medical school - even though this first baby is now nearly 30. I think she got like 34 on the ACT. She skipped a grade long ago. She's a smarty pants - and yet 18 at the time still seemed very young). Both these couples are still married - the former for now 13 years or so, and the latter for 25+. I have other siblings. We all married before the age of 26. Younger marriages can and do work. But if you marry before 18, the odds you get divorced are as high as if you wait until like age 32 when you're no longer so flexible and bendable to get on with a partner. The sweet spot for most of us seems to be the mid-20s. As fertility is still decently high for women at this point, why would we rush the few years where we can try to assimilate what we know, integrate more areas of projection within our own personalities, and learn a bit? Men do not and cannot teach their children everything. Women provide some of this as well - and women who are mentally healthy and more grown up and are actually women (which means at least 17 imo and are closer to at least 20 - at a minimum), are going to only benefit a marriage, and benefit their men. Because, simply put, they're more likely to be whole.
Marriage is hard enough. Why would you throw in a monkey wrench like - marrying someone of another heritage? Or marrying someone who started her period like one year prior? Girls just aren't put together enough in their middling teens. If men are attracted to this, I get it. But marrying a woman vs a girl provides a man with a challenge that he will have to hone himself to meet. Such women may be less inclined to leave their men if and when those men fail - as we all do on occasion - to meet those challenges.
*All my best to you and yours
Things have changed thank God.
"I can get married at 30 after sleeping around [says the Lord's name in vain]"
I'm not sure that's what she stated at all. And not everyone who enjoys your thoughts and writing from time to time, are Christians. This does not mean we are irrelevant or not White advocates.
I cannot fathom anyone (anyone at all) younger than 17 being able to be a wife of integrity - which to me, means someone capable of seeking out and observing objective reality. Beginning too young simply emphasizes the inevitable difficulties in trying to maintain a holistic lifestyle while tied to a partner. This is profoundly anti-White imo.
Romans were anti-white? Greatest white civilization lol.
You just haven't met any intelligent teenagers I guess. IQ is really what matters.
The whole thrust of the article is really around the dysgenic debate that has been going on for decades, and it centers very much on the effects of fertility, genes and IQ. You are including important facets such as maturity, financial security and a balanced life in the modern world. There is danger when the subject of dysgenics becomes an ideology.
The divorce rate would even be higher than it already is if the marriage age dropped. Doesn't matter, change never stops, we can look back, but we can't live back. Women are far too well educated today to fall for this power play, although, I would say the Taliban are succeeding in subjugating women and keeping them pregnant, housebound and ignorant.
Yes ma'am, most people live lives of fornication until they decide to finally get married and pop out mutationally loaded gamete kids in their thirties, at below replacement level to the point the USA population is going to halve by mid century (fortunately, we have immigrants to replace us) . Then more than half get divorced. Thank God.
AI will change the whole dynamic of needing to replace the workforce.
The autonomy of Spartan women led directly to the downfall of Sparta. According to custom, Spartan women would inherit property when they married, and keep it if they ever divorced. This was so a woman whose husband divorced her wouldn’t starve; only once women were given the right to divorce men did this become a problem (we have a similar problem with the Family Courts today). By the time of Alexander the Great, the women were “marrying to divorce, and divorcing to marry.” By the time of Rome, Sparta was a shell of its former self.
Thanks for the response. What are your thoughts on the downfall of Athens, who had the opposite position with their women (who were kept at home, always), and a high case of pederasty?
There is no evidence that pregnancy at age 12 is dangerous. You are a homosexual cuckold.
Among the Pumé hunter-gatherers of Venezuela—a population with a later average age of menarche than the US and virtually no access to modern medicine—girls who become pregnant for the first time in their preteens or early teens have reduced lifetime reproductive success due to increased mortality and pregnancy complications. However, girls who have their first pregnancy in their mid-teens (15 to 17) have more reproductive success than those whose first pregnancies occur in their late teens or 20s.
This strongly suggests that relatively early pregnancy is evolutionarily adaptive for women living in an ancestral environment and has been naturally selected for.
"Given parity-specific mortality rates, the optimal strategy to minimize infant mortality and maximize reproductive span is to initiate childbearing in the midteens. Women gain no additional advantage in surviving fertility by delaying childbearing until their late teens."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18386795/
The more pregnancies a woman has, the greater the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke with aging. That is because pregnancy makes the heart a little larger and thicker each time and doesn't return to pre-pregnancy state. Further, every pregnancy depletes calcium stores in a woman, even if she is taking in adequate calcium. Which is why when you look at what kills women before the age of 45 in westernized countries, pregnancy still has a place. While not as high as accidents or being killed by the male that impregnated them, it still ranks.
Your claim that the heart never fully returns to its pre-pregnancy state is false and is the exception rather than the rule. For most women, cardiovascular changes fully normalize within 6 months after delivery.
"Increased left ventricular mass and chamber size during pregnancy regressed significantly by 6 weeks postpartum, with complete normalization by 6 months in the absence of pathology.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37477690/
Pregnancy itself isn't a risk factor for atrial fibrilation or cardiovascular disease, but some pregnancy complications, especially preeclampsia and peripartum cardiomyopathy, are. That's why only women with a history of these conditions, and not all women who have had a child, receive early cardiovascular screening and risk factor management.
More pregnancies do not necessarily mean a higher risk of AFib or stroke decades later. For the vast majority of pregnancies, the heart does recover, and there's no permanent thickening or size increase after each pregnancy.
The only reason the maternal mortality rate in the US is slightly elevated is because obesity among Black women raises the average. If the US had a maternal mortality rate comparable to the UK—which has a lower obesity rate—pregnancy would actually be much safer than being a taxi driver or a farmer:
https://imgur.com/a/dpKhQKf
Even in the US, women who have given birth live a bit longer on average than those who have never had children:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/have-kids-live-longer-2017042411562
Christianity changed sexual union to one based on spiritual connection, not just breeding. I don't think we will go back to primitive times.
I don't think the age gap being smaller makes anything more "spiritual"...
Spiritual maturity comes with time.
Waiting for women to mature past the age of 18 is silly. Women should have little to no say on who they marry.
Spiritual connection transcends Christianity. I don't mean this as an argument against Christianity. I'm just saying - my people in Scandinavia, just for example, likely considered themselves "spiritual" they just wouldn't have used such terms. Their connections with people they liked and mated with would have incorporated that imo
I agree, and religions are full of dogma that are not in alignment with the non-material matrix of love but do hold the idea at least of the supernatural, like many tribal societies. Christianity though has influenced western culture greatly, most mediaeval art was religious in nature, it wasn't until the enlightenment that things started to change.
The general life expectancy was 25-35 in Rome, not just for women. There's no real evidence that women had a lower life expectancy. Also, that life expectancy is only that low because infant mortality rates massively drop it down, and not because adults were actually dying on average in that age range. If that actually was the life expectancy for adults, all the famous romans who were recorded dying at ages 50-80 would be quite the anomaly. Anastasius I even made it to 87 years old.
Pretty sure when you factor out infant mortality the life expectancy was in the 60s
Yes, some lived many decades, but they didn't have antibiotics, infection took many early on.
The Romans were living in very different circumstances than we are today. Roman fathers had authority over the marriage of their children, and preferred to marry their daughters off early because daughters were a liability. Roman men also spent much of their younger years in the military. The survival rate of a full 20-year tour in the Roman military was around 70%. If they were to marry late, like the Germanics (who did not have to cross continents for wars), their wives would be near menopause by the time they returned
This comment was AI generated, so you are banned.
You have no eggs left ma'am.
How would you know? Perhaps you're correct. Perhaps you're not. The comment itself was really strongly worded - and I get it may be offensive if you're a guy who thinks it is moral to shack up with teens - which seems to be more often than not a hard "no" from where I stand, but I get that it's a conversation right now in White nationalist circles. We should have this conversation. But let's try a bit harder. The White battle against the opposite sex right now blows - and I'm really fucking tired of it. I can't be the only one. It's anti-White, and we can do better.
Got the same vibe as you from the article and wondered the same things that you concluded.
This is the field consensus on the actual ages of marriage in the Roman empire. He mentions the law was politically motivated. This is true -- it was higher than the actual norms and not enforced. Not the other way around.
All healthy young bachelors are attracted to teenaged girls. It's easy to see why with evopsych. A monogamous male will evolve to prefer to marry a woman with the maximum number of eggs, given she is ready to become pregnant immediately. This minimizes the investment cost into the marriage (ie paying for a girl when she is too young to bear children) while maximizing marital fitness (men who marry these women will tend to have more children, on average). This age is somewhere in the modern high school age range.
I've found any young bachelor that doesn't follow this law is sexually disordered in some way, usually on the homosexual spectrum. Muscly mommy doms with inverse age gaps are masculine; men who like these are usually always bisexuals. Others may have hormone deficits leading to asexuality.
Proximity is one of the prime drivers in mate selection. Darwin's theory on sexual selection has not been solved. It is superficial when it comes to explaining human mate selection, where childhood imprinting has profound influence, far more than twenty-year-old men desiring women three years older or younger than themselves.
I think people who are scandalized by these facts are confusing their culturally imposed sense of decency with something more innate or objective (being charitable here by ignoring those motivated by jealousy, of both sexes). Sexual attraction has many dimensions, and it’s possible for a man to find a girl sexually appealing in one context but not another. It doesn’t change the fact that there is a context where he is sexually attracted to her.
Also, there’s a big difference between marrying a young girl, having casual sex with contraception, and trafficking them. The first of those three was not uncommon in European colonies, even up to the early 1900s in America. People should research their family tree for at least a handful of generations before throwing around obscene accusations.
Women historically have been chattel, not anymore, that changes everything.
While I am in sympathy with questioning why some insist on advocating, seemingly, for up to six year gaps in dating teens from 15 on up - I'd encourage you to question who changed, in modern times, how women are treated, and how the changes we see now (some of them) came about. White men have literally given women the moon.
My parents had a 10 year age gap and met when my mother was 16. My father waited until the day she turned 17 to start dating her, because that was the age of consent. This means a legal technicality prevented me from having an extra sibling.
Unless the guy is using contraception or the girl uses the courts to leave with his kids and his money, I don’t see anything morbid or exploitative about these sorts of relationships.
No, they have not, women fought for their freedoms. Although if you attend Grace Evangelical Church you will see the thousands of women that remain bound.
Are you insinuating modern women don’t have too much freedom?
What are you insinuating?
It’s written by ChatGPT. The author signed up just to post it.
Thanks!
We can count on change. Most men could not read or write and survived and provided using the sweat of their brow and pure brawn. Those attributes are no longer relevant. Women are thriving in the sphere of education and tend to hold the reins, and men are feeling that shift. However, there are 8 billion people on the planet, and AI will render most people's skills, both male and female obsolete. We don't need to replace a human workforce. Perhaps there will be more time for us to figure out what to do next, maybe spend far more time in nature, and take the kids along.
Funnilly uploaded the same time as I'm having my first debate w/ twitter retards about teenagers, pedophilia, and the twenty five brain myth thing.
I take this as a major synchronocity
link?
https://x.com/rafahsuckz/status/1945574763524411403
htps://x.com/rafahsuckz/status/1945668062788657360
https://x.com/rafahsuckz/status/1945645216611934300
I'm new to this, this is the first time I ever debated the subject. Any tips on angles I should use or constructive criticism?
Might be an awakening or a massive reaction to the hysteria of the anti-pedophile subhumans.
Cool, but your 12-14 year old daughter should be the test case for how based and normal marrying her to a guy in his 20s would be in the modern world. Marry her off and report back.
I agree. She needs to get married ASAP.
Interesting seeing this. I just put out an essay saying how much harm we are doing not treating 15 year old as adult.
https://jamessteinhaus.substack.com/p/editorial-stop-treating-15-year-olds
It's seems that late 1st marriage is a uniquely modern western thing
I know several women who have beautiful, healthy children, conceived in their late forties and early fifties, they froze their eggs until they met suitable partners.
Yeah, that's the way if you for some reason can't avoid having kids late. At least the kids are healthy.
But it's still a terrible idea. We have a large age range among the parents we're friends with, and the difference in energy level is just obvious. Sleeplessness, sickness, just plain playing is all much easier when you're young yourself. Not to mention that a society were you have kids with 40+ implies becoming a grandparent only after 80! There's a decent chance you won't even see your grandkids at all, let alone help out with raising or watching them grow.
No matter how much I think about it, having kids in your 20s seems like the best middle ground. That's enough time to grow up and finish school, and you have soo much free time anyway when studying. It's insane how much people waste on pointless time sinks just because they don't have anything better to do.
And honestly, looking at my kids, I'd rather they have kids too early than too late or none at all. In the former case, we'll just help out, and get to see them grow up.
Historically women stopped having kids at menopause. In fact, the Church prevented birth control. It was normal to have kids in their 40's. It is only a modern notion to think it is dangerous, since childbirth has become a profitable medical intervention. Richard Gere, Robert Deniro, Kevin Costner had children way past their forties, and those kids may not grow up to have their fathers. Women in their forties have plenty of energy to raise a kid or two. Women in their forties trying to raise seven, eight and nine children had to rely on the younger ones to help.
That doesn't sound natural. Women's fertility begins to decline at 25 and the number of eggs they produce exponentially declines every 5 years afterwards
Yeah, my mother had a baby at 40. My grandmothers too. Several aunts at 38-42. I had one later on. So... while you're correct about it being "unnatural", this doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing in and of itself to freeze one's eggs. Fertility these days sucks. Not all of us meet our spouses at the perfect time. That's reality. Better that these women had kids likely, than not at all.
The naturalistic fallacy says everything natural is good, not always. Sometimes intervention improves on nature, such as an antibiotic for a severe infection.
Roughly 0.025% to 0.05% of all women freeze their eggs. Of those, ~10–12% use them
So: 0.0003 × 0.10 = 0.00003 = 0.003% of all women do this.
If it became higher, then sure you could argue this is a realistic intervention. Everything indicates that so far nobody is actually doing it, even with decades of climbing rates of marriage and delayed births.
I don't see why it would become a substitute for natural conception. But, for the women I know who now enjoy having healthy kids because they did choose to freeze their eggs, it has been a Godsend for them. I don't see it as a negative.
My grandmothers and all the women in their day had children well into their forties. That is reality. I have the aunts and uncles to prove it.
The problem is the quality of eggs and sperm decrease with age. Even if they are more or less healthy, the overall negative dysgenic load in the gene pool is being increased every time this occurs. You're damaging the gene pool of your descendants by doing this.
They froze their eggs in their 30's though. I don't know if the sperm was frozen, because yes, older eggs and sperm are more prone to genetic defects which show up differently depending on whether they come from the egg or sperm. As far as women historically having kids in their forties, they had no access to birth control. Even if they started in their twenties and had six kids by their mid-thirties, those younger kids are at higher risk of physiological problems. Having lots of children is damaging to the mother's cells also. So, the ideal seems to be, have a few kids when young and stop. Stanford - "Some studies show that while there is a higher risk of pregnancy problems in older women, their babies may not have more problems than babies of younger women. This is more likely when women get prenatal care and give birth in a healthcare facility ready to care for high-risk mothers and babies." Giving birth is big business, and although some fears are legitimate, the medical industry makes money through fear. I think if people want to get flu shots, go ahead, but they are advertised non-stop as though one is in mortal danger if they don't take them, no mention of the downsides of course.
If you're defining "fertility" as "chance of conception within a given time frame of trying within repeated unprotected sex," it does not seem to begin to decline at 25; women who try in their late 20s are as likely to get pregnant within six or twelve months as women who try in their early 20s. The noticeable decline seems to start at 35 - which women are already told in clinical settings. https://ro.co/fertility/female-fertility-age-chart/
If one wishes to make full usage of female fertility, marrying them when they're 12 is ideal.
Bronski, Azealia Banks twitter atm is a goldmine of hilarity re: AOC. some negress pop legend debating about it. p hilarious, involves discussions of 'teen' capacity to consent, and historic norms.
Can you make a post debunking this race denialism
https://youtu.be/CO6QHNV8eQ4?si=mktm5Ue5Yd9iaOhY
I enjoyed your previous post where you debunked race denialism
Very nice posts and all, even had it be pinned on my space. However, why insist on X? Feels like a losing battle. It already censors too much. You also ignored my invite to join Matrix, where you could have actual free speech.
As for my view on the topic: I wish the age of marriage for girls was lowered to 7 or 8, to allow for Eunice Winstead-like marriage. Removing it altogether could be good as well. It's important to never allow it to be raised past 12 ever again. That's when you start getting the homosexual cuckolds responding to your posts negatively.
Also, your earlier view of 15 being nice due to brain development is feminist. We shouldn't wait for women to mature, otherwise we would wait until they die.
I sat on the Maternal Mortality Board of Tennessee and have been an obstetric and trauma anesthesiologist since the late 1990s having worked at a couple of the busiest trauma centers in the US. Mortality associated with childbirth has always plagued women of childbearing age, much as acts of stupidity plague young men. Not only within my ancestral family were women lost to childbirth, but in visiting old graveyards wherever I travel, one sees headstones with the very words "died in childbirth" carved into them. For young girls - 16 and less, there is greater risks with pregnancy. I have taken care of girls as young as 10 who've been impregnated. They have a greater risk of preeclampsia and molar pregnancy than those who are older. A girl a grew up with was raped at age 12 by a fellow military man of her older brother. By age 18, after 4 children, she looked like a 40 year-old-woman with sagging breasts, flabby belly and thighs and a number of missing teeth....because pregnancy does suck the calcium right out of you. While she recognized me, I did not recognize her. So, while the Romans - or whatever ancient cultural group you'd like to pick - made 12 year old girls wives - we don't need to go that route in our current age. Maintaining fertility doesn't require that one be 14.
Very true. 16 and 14 were common enough ages in mediaeval times and 16 is still the age of consent and marriage in many common law countries.
Rome still fell.
Everyone also dies. Do you plan on killing yourself tonight because everyone dies anyway?
Indeed. At least I know where I'm going when I do.
And so will America if it continues to allow age of consent of 18 or higher.