Does anyone think this is wrong or have a problem with this?

[MrOracle]

This only seems unusual because you're looking at it from a post-WWII perspective, and things have changed in massive ways since then. For all of human history up to then, and to this day in many countries, women married at an average age of 15, and marriages (and having kids) as young as 12 was usually not especially remarkable. Both of my grandmothers were 15 when they married, with one married until my grandfather died (62 years together), and the other still with my grandfather after 67 years together, and counting.

What is "normal"? What happened for all of recorded human history from 6,000 BC up to 1960 (and even long before that, from anthropology research), or from 1960 until now? I submit that getting married at an average age of 30 (the norm for women in modern Western society today) is the aberration, not the norm.

Anyone reading this: go back through your own family history, and look at how old the women were when they got married for marriages before 1960, and you'll likely see that most of them were married by 16 or so. Women who hit 20 without being married were considered "old maids" and "spinsters" who couldn't attract a man.

The entire concept of "adolescence" is actually pretty new. For the most part, prior to WWII, you were a child until you reached puberty, and then you were an adult, with adult responsibilities. In many rural areas of the world, it's still that way even today.

[archer86]

Back in those days, life was just completely different than now in ways most of us just cannot or refuse to understand. Families needed larger numbers to work for a living because manual labor was the standard norm. Mobility and social flexibility was at a premium in those days, which mean you had to take what was available within reach, so to speak. Also, interracial relationships were unspeakable back then, which limited choices even further. Finally, society wasn't so open about many things. It was strict, but not complex as relationships are today.

Ever heard of Frederick Douglass? He's the great black rights reformer in the 19th century. His second wife was Helen Pitts who was 30 while he was 50. The ONLY reason why this was an issue was that he was black, she was white. Otherwise many people really didn't have a problem with that. Not at those perspective ages.

Now if a man was 50 and she's 15...now THAT is a problem.

In conclusion, the past is in the past. As long as it worked and it really wasn't illegal. For example: I at 44 (just turned today!) marrying you at under 18...THAT is just wrong.

Hope this helps

[cazza3]

It was a completely different time. You can't look at it in today's context or even try to fully understand it because we don't have a full comprehension of what life was like then. Sure we have stories, history can tell us but to truly understand something you must live it. There was no contraception then so 11 kids in a family, especially a Catholic family was the norm. In the majority of cases at 14 years of age both girls and boys were working , people didn't date like now, a chaperone nearly always had to be present and marraige's happened after a short space of time. You cannot compare a 14 year old girl in 1924 to a girl of the 21st century, there is no comparison.

[katiesmuff]

Those were times when big families and marriages at those ages were common. Remember back then age 60 was OLD and many of the large families were from those farming and such which was needed for help.

[abundantlyrich]

it was a time to populate back then when there was war happening around diff. parts of the world and men were dying and there wasn't much to do except eat, sleep, work and copulate.

[Isaiah15]

It was different time then. It's funny because my great grandparents on my fathers side were almost the same way. My great grandfather was 24 and my great grandmother was 14 had their first child later. When I think abou it, there were probably many weird or awkward times between them. My grandmother says it was normal because the man was older and could provide for his wife. They had 12 children because they lived on a farm, and couldn't pay anyone to work. Children were free labor.

On my moms side, my grandmother grew up in the north. It was a more normal way of life. I don't know much about my great grandparents though. I do know that my great grandfather worked in a bank. It paid very well at the time so there wasn't a need for many children.

[cheeky_starfish]

I think you just have to accept that society at the time deemed it acceptable for a woman to get married at 14 and have children at 15, so I do not look badly on something like that as I would today. As society and culture changes over the years, certain things become more frowned upon, or acceptable as the case may be. Although that would be largely frowned upon now, it was very acceptable at the time so people were only doing what society allowed and in some respect what society expected them to do!

As for having 11 children, well my view on that is very simple... If you are willing to give the necessary time, care and attention that having 11 children would demand and you can afford to raise 11 children, then go for it! lol

[Anonymous]

The thing is, a 14 yo girl's body is not prepared for childbirth. Deaths during childbirth at those ages are way way higher than childbirth at 16+. That's one.

Also, a teenager's brain is not fully developed until they are 17 (more or less, depending on the specific person), and they won't have the tools and education to make an informed decision until much later. So there's that too.

Finally, you're mentioning an anecdote from 100 years ago. In 1924 your 23 yo great grandfather was capable of providing for her unemployed wife and 4 children. That's simply not possible nowadays.

Sure, in the 1000s 12 yo girls married to 30 yo guys, and they had 8 children (of which only 3 survived) before dying and the guy married another 12 yo. But it's not the XI century anymore.

[Anonymous]

The biblical Mary delivered the King of Kings at 15 or younger, not rare for those days. The average life expectency was about 40. The times and culture were different. Sexual deviants, predators and perverts were stoned. No lawyers. Summary justice. Even 100 years ago, things were different.

[attica2000]

I believe age is just a number. How your heart feels is not determined by age. If two hearts are drawn together, go for it. It was meant to be. I don't see a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Lol @ 11 kids. Now THAT I would have a problem with and I could personally never marry a person that was only a teenager for two years but it was a different time I guess.

[Dandeus]

I don't have a problem with it considering the time period, as I can appreciate the historical context, but it certainly wouldn't fly by modern standards.

[jacquesvol]

-How could a 14 yo give a lawful consent?

-Having that many kids must be hell and misery.

Let's be happy we moved away from situations like that.

[Anonymous]

It's a bit red-necky, even for the early 20th century.

[SamuelB]

Your grandparents did it Jerry Lee Lewis style.