UNDER ENGLISH CIVIL LAW THE MINIMUM MARRIAGE AGE FOR A WOMAN WAS 12
AMERICAN COLONIAL LAW WAS THE SAME
NOW YOU CAN'T MARRY THEM BUT YOU CAN HACK THEIR TITS OFF AND SEW A FRANKENDICK ON THEM, THEN ITS OK TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM AT 12
WHAT CHANGED?
I want to know what each one of you thinks are the reasons behind this progression.
>inb4source

>>510719833 (OP)
Sniffy Joe's state of Deleware thought that was quite hagish, no one wants to marry a dried out whore. So they lowered it, to 7 in the 1880s.

Really it wasn't even England, age of consent was 12 even in Roman times.

>>510719833 (OP)
>WHAT CHANGED?
Unironically, feminism. It's really interesting to read the work of people who were discussing the issue of the raising of the age of consent back when it first happened in the US. Here's Benjamin Tucker on the subject:

>Not content with getting the age of consent raised from ten to thirteen, a bevy of impertinent and prudish women went up to the Massachusetts State House the other day and asked that it be raised again,—this time to eighteen. When a member of the legislative committee suggested that the age be placed at thirty-five, since the offence aimed at was as much a crime at thirty-five as at eighteen, the petitioners did not seem to be terrified of his logic. Evidently these ladies are not afraid that their consent will ever be asked at all.—Liberty, February 11, 1888

>The editor of the Arena longs for the “era of woman” because, when it arrives, States being woman-governed instead of man-governed, the “age of consent” will be placed at eighteen years. Pointing to the example set in this respect by Kansas and Wyoming, the States which come nearest to being woman-governed, he says in rebuking italics: “All the other States trail the banner of morality in the dust before the dictates of man’s bestiality.” Mr. Flower supposes himself to be an individualist, and sometimes writes in favor of individualism in a way that commands my admiration. But I am curious to know by what rule he applies the theory of individualism, that he can bring himself to violate and deny the individuality of the girl who wrote The Story of an African Farm, by favoring a law which would send to prison for twenty years, as guilty of rape, any man with whom she might have freely chosen, at the age when she began to write that book, to enter into sexual relations.—Liberty, August 1, 1891

>>510720311
No one should have sex with a seven year old, as they are unable to conceive.
The main purpose of sex is procreation, but this has been perverted to sex as a form of chemical dependency, and perverted further to mutilation of sexual organs for attention endorphin dependency.

>>510719833 (OP)
Feminists and their homo orbiters changed it.
muh poor innocent flowers being ravished by vile penis wielding oppressors...

>>510721227
So, loosely condensed with liberties you are saying raising the age of consent increases the sexual trade value " more crudely known here as 'pussy pass' " of the woman who has passed her prime.
Now we have gone further, as women raised children have turned in to queers who want to have sex with mutilated children under 12.
Why do you think events have transpired in this manner?

>>510719833 (OP)
>UNDER ENGLISH CIVIL LAW THE MINIMUM MARRIAGE AGE FOR A WOMAN WAS 12
It was actually 10 years old and this shouldn't be controversial. Feminists need a bullet to the head for being snakes who raise the age of consent/marriage.

>>510722339
Once again, ten is to young for most females to bear offspring. A minimum of twelve would be safer, and from a medical standpoint any woman can safely bear a child at 13, however there should be no sex before marriage at any age, and a medical exam should be legally required before marriage and conception to ensure a woman is capable of child bearing at any age marriage is proposed under 14 to safeguard outliers, no?