|
Two points:
I recall back in high-school I had an extensive family heritage assignment. I learned that my great-grandparents were married in 1920, both rural children or grandchildren of pioneers. I'm told that they met the day he returned from WWI and were married a few months later. He was 20. She was barely 14. First child at 15. They went on to a 50 year marriage and 9 children. I never met either, but it is an example of a 14 year old girl assuming the role of homemaker and mother. We'll never know details, but she seemed successful.
I know historically that young brides aren't uncommon. But no way would I approve of a 20 year old "man" marrying a 14 year old girl now. Further consideration that he had travelled to europe, served time in the trenches, life-and-death harsh experiences. And she had probably literally 'barely been off the farm'.
Sign of modern times that young people can lead a younger life longer?
Second, and I don't mean to make this trivial, but since I was a boy who was noticing girls, and throughout my teens, etc, I often preached the "half-your-age-plus-seven" rule. I never personally had a relationship that pushed a limited, but I had friends that lived by it. It was a hard and fast rule that made pretty good sense at the time, but when looking at the grey area of age of consent, I honestly think that it is applicable.
You're 13 or 14, you can do what you will with people of your age. You're 16, you can go 15 without a problem. 18 can go 16. 30 can go 22. Etc. But if you are 25, you can go for the 19.5-20 year old, not the 14.
|