>17902709
cont:

>>17900951
>>17900954
>>17901537
Yes and no. Unmarried people having sex could be executed, and adultery was almost as bad and could result in similar punishments, but girls were sometimes married in their younger teens or preteens, some sources claim at times even younger, wheras men were usually married in their older teens or early 20s.

>>17897936
I don't think the culling thing makes sense. Yes, some disabled people were selected for sacrifices, but there were also sacrifices where only the most perfect, fit, wise etc people were selected. And yes, sacrifice was seen as a cosmic necessity, but it's naive to act like it wasn't leveraged by those in power for their own purposes.

>>17897959
I don't know what you're talking about with the pre 1400 stuff, that's nonsense. And for the stuff after, Butterfly wars weren't a thing. You're probably thinking of Flower Wars, but flower wars were not the only source of captured soldiers: normal wars had killing and focused on the military objective but captive taking was still done at times/when possible (and conversely, flower wars still had pragmatic geopolitical and military utility despite being ritualized and focused on captive taking, namely to wear down states for full conquest, as a way to dip your toes into a conflict without committing to full scale warfare, and to keep soldiers trained, fit and invested in taking captives/a military career even when there were no full scale wars)

The entropy comparison with a lack of sacrifices leading to cosmic disorder and decay is potentially iffy, tho not invalid. It makes sense within James Maffies teotl monism model but that has it's critics. Cannibalism being a way to make up for diety deficiencies is long debunked tho, especially if we're talking protein rather then fat. The Mesoamericans had enough nutrients provided there wasn't severe famine, and cannibalism wasn't done at large enough scales to make up for any potential deficiencies anyways.

4/?