Somewhat sensationalized headline… 17 and (up to) 21 being legal doesn’t fetch the same clicks as “cHiLd BrIdEs”. I lost my virginity to someone whose birthdate fell relative to mine by just the right amount that we had 3 different legal statuses over the course of a one-year relationship. Nothing about it was rapey, but that seems to be the implication here.
I mean… we were talking about it? Does that mean 18-year-olds getting married (even to people well over 21) isn’t also stupid? I agree there needs to be a bright line somewhere, and that figuring out exactly where is nuanced. I was just pointing out that this looked like engagement bait.
The entire reason a lot of these bills never go anywhere is because removing the child marriage laws tends to also have a lot of knock-on effects. It also removes protections for cases such as yours, which is the vast majority of cases that these bills get involved in. Yes, there are some more extreme instances in some states, but it’s rare.
So when these bills try and strike the laws entirely with no consideration or replacement for protection, it just creates an even worse situation than having them in the first place.
So you either have a case like we have now where it’s imperfect. It allows for some amount of really really f***** up. S*** but generally is a 100% necessary amount of protection for couples between 16 and 21.
Emancipation by marriage is a very common protection for abuse of households for high school and young college couples. A 17-year-old marrying an 18-year-old, for example, can be an easy way to get a easy out of an abusive household in a legal way that provides a number of protections.
My own mother used that to get out of her own abusive household.
Without these so-called child marriage laws, such a thing would have been impossible.
Who in there saying mine would condemn the majority of cases to a worse situation to save a small number of extremely rare circumstances. A sane person would rather leave the protections in for the majority of cases while patching the hole that allows for those extremely rare circumstances.
But most of these suggestions always are to just strike it all. Get rid of it all. Wholesale no thought. No replacement no consideration. So they go nowhere. No one wants to touch them. They’ve eventually just die off.
Everyone gets pissed cuz everyone just reads the sensationalized headlines of child brides. Thinking why the f*** aren’t they doing anything? Yada yada yada.
It’s complicated problem and it’s a icky problem to most people so they don’t want to think about it or research it in any meaningful way.
Somewhat sensationalized headline… 17 and (up to) 21 being legal doesn’t fetch the same clicks as “cHiLd BrIdEs”. I lost my virginity to someone whose birthdate fell relative to mine by just the right amount that we had 3 different legal statuses over the course of a one-year relationship. Nothing about it was rapey, but that seems to be the implication here.
I think we can all agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, so why not just 18 as a blanket statement?
Because the poster you’re responding to got laid which is the same a marriage
I mean… we were talking about it? Does that mean 18-year-olds getting married (even to people well over 21) isn’t also stupid? I agree there needs to be a bright line somewhere, and that figuring out exactly where is nuanced. I was just pointing out that this looked like engagement bait.
The entire reason a lot of these bills never go anywhere is because removing the child marriage laws tends to also have a lot of knock-on effects. It also removes protections for cases such as yours, which is the vast majority of cases that these bills get involved in. Yes, there are some more extreme instances in some states, but it’s rare.
So when these bills try and strike the laws entirely with no consideration or replacement for protection, it just creates an even worse situation than having them in the first place.
So you either have a case like we have now where it’s imperfect. It allows for some amount of really really f***** up. S*** but generally is a 100% necessary amount of protection for couples between 16 and 21.
Emancipation by marriage is a very common protection for abuse of households for high school and young college couples. A 17-year-old marrying an 18-year-old, for example, can be an easy way to get a easy out of an abusive household in a legal way that provides a number of protections.
My own mother used that to get out of her own abusive household.
Without these so-called child marriage laws, such a thing would have been impossible.
Who in there saying mine would condemn the majority of cases to a worse situation to save a small number of extremely rare circumstances. A sane person would rather leave the protections in for the majority of cases while patching the hole that allows for those extremely rare circumstances.
But most of these suggestions always are to just strike it all. Get rid of it all. Wholesale no thought. No replacement no consideration. So they go nowhere. No one wants to touch them. They’ve eventually just die off.
Everyone gets pissed cuz everyone just reads the sensationalized headlines of child brides. Thinking why the f*** aren’t they doing anything? Yada yada yada.
It’s complicated problem and it’s a icky problem to most people so they don’t want to think about it or research it in any meaningful way.