3 ms·

I'm not convinced I buy this argument. I mean, yes Romeo and Juliet were probably 13 or 14, but if we didn't accept that we can hold ourselves to higher moral

by moomin 13y ago

I'm not convinced I buy this argument. I mean, yes Romeo and Juliet were probably 13 or 14, but if we didn't accept that we can hold ourselves to higher moral standard than our predecessors we'd still be crucifying rebellious slaves on the road side. Just from the _comedies_ we've inherited from the Renaissance, we can tell that young girls marrying old men was pretty common until pretty recently. We can also tell that they didn't much like it. Tbh, I think age of consent laws are as much about women's rights as public decency. Arguably the age of consent laws in the U.S. are being perverted by the far right, but that's a whole different argument. The age of consent rules (both in theory and in terms of enforcement) in the U.K. are, I believe, on the whole moral and sensible.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'm not convinced I buy this argument. I mean, yes Romeo and Juliet were probably 13 or 14 Romeo and Juliet were probably fictional characters of undefined age whose actual age -- as distinct from their status within their families and the broader society -- are completely irrelevant. > but if we didn't accept that we can hold ourselves to higher moral standard than our predecessors we'd still be crucifying rebellious slaves on the road side. I'm not sure expanding the duration during which people are deprived of rights because they haven't acheived a particular, globally applied, chronological milestone is a "higher moral standard".