Re: about feminism

To read a specific anti-ped agenda there fits your preconceptions and expectations of the Church (not unlike GC's libertarians' of the State) but is just not historically accurate. Any apparent anti-ped agenda was only part of a general anti-sex agenda, and never was an independent concern as it has become today. I might grant the point for gays and BLers because they always were by definition outside marriage, but I don't grant it for GLers.

That was my point: that it didn't need to be a specific concern because it just wasn't that common. There are numerous accounts of 18th and 19th century missionaries being shocked to find young children in tribal cultures participating in sex. There shock would not have arisen if it was common in the West then (other than in the very lowest classes, where child prostitution was an issue--but the upper and religious classes considered all prostitutes to be "fallen women"). But the fact is, you vastly overestimate how common child marriage was. It was actually a little more common with the highest class--royals--but again those were marriages of convenience and were not consummated immediately. I used to think it was more common amongst the lower classes, but I've read enough now to know that wasn't the case.

Note that I am talking prepubescent girls here; you would be correct in assuming that marriage to adolescent girls was quite common, but they were not considered children anymore at that point. That was a cultural shift that arose, I think, with Freud and the birth of psychology more so than with feminism. Early feminists were not obsessed with the age of women and girls; they were focused on the general oppression of females in their patriarchal setting, which was a legitimate concern. CASC issues only really became a concern in the late 70s and early 80s, and was born in the cauldron of an overall cultural shift towards modern conservatism in the West, which was a reaction to the 60s. Cultures swing back and forth all the time, and we're currently in a conservative mode (albeit one that the cons of, say, the late Victorian era would not recognize).

The feminist criticism is valid - but it is still a feminist criticism; and it is still not about GLers or GL but about parental authority (Ask Dissident. He knows more than I do about this - and you used to contradict his statements about this).

That is actually an extension of my point about CASC not being a specific issue with the post-Medieval Church. There criticism of that is/was the flip side of the Church's endorsement of a generally oppressive patriarchal regime. So even if marriages to young girls did occur somewhat often (and they obviously didn't--any thorough research of historical records of marriages and genealogical information reveals it wasn't so), your claims that marriage to young girls was legitimate to any extent is a foolish misunderstanding of what was actually going on. Women, and particularly girls, had no power. They were the chattel of men for the longest time, so it's highly doubtful any such arrangement would really be about men being attracted to young girls. I challenge you, LGs--and anyone else here who wants to take up the challenge--to find me three historical accounts in Western culture, aside from royals or famous people, of marriages between a prepubescent girl (we will unfortunately have to use age as the measuring stick here, so lets set it at 11 and under) and an adult male, prior to the 20th century. That's quite a bit of leeway there.

I'd also like to point out that certain historical cases have been highlighted for me from a few different source. I have a Muslim friend, and I asked her about Mohammed and Aisha. She told me that Mohammed adopted her because she was an orphan, and that they were never married, much less had sex. I find that doubtful; I'm more inclined to believe they were married and Mohammed consummated it when she was 9 (or thereabouts)--it's entirely feasible that she began to enter puberty at that age. But just be aware that there are conflicting accounts there.

The other case is that of Edgar Allan Poe, who you are aware married his 12-year-old cousin. I have come across some info which suggests that Poe had a significant reason for marrying her that had nothing to do with attraction. Apparently Virginia was about to be shipped to a relative she despised and appealed to Poe to marry her in order to keep from being shipped off to him. That account I'm more inclined to believe because nothing in Poe's writings suggests to me he was a true GLer. I can see how he might've fallen for Virginia after the fact, and it's clear he did love her when she died (she was a young adult by then), but I don't think he was an MAP. I think he adored the child, sure--he'd lived with her and her mother briefly--and wanted her to be happy. I don't think it was about attraction though.