How common were age gaps historically? Was say, 18 and 23 or 16 and 24 seen as normal?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
How common were age gaps historically? Was say, 18 and 23 or 16 and 24 seen as normal?
>How common were age gaps historically?
Extremely.
>Was say, 18 and 23 or 16 and 24 seen as normal?
Yes, and you can broaden the gap a hell of a lot further than that.
most women married between 15-20 yo, for men 20-30 was a more common range
What women did young men get with?
Other young women, they just didn't marry them on sight.
Young women, often of lower class, or even younger women- females go through puberty before men, remember. Peasants usually married younger though, and with lower age gaps.
That's a bit early. Even in the medieval times most couples would usually wait until mid 20s to get married.
Altough they could be betrothed from a very very very young age.
But yes there has always been a substantial age gap between men and women for obvious reason.
Men = Providers
Women = Beautiy
Men thus obivously needed more time to fall into standards, men would usually take their own initiative not to propose to a woman until he felt he was financially stable to provide for the whole family, or even a financial match to the girls family. The father would never approve a marriage if the man couldnt match the family wealth. This was a thing all the way to the early 20th century.
Women were expected to know how to sing and dance, play an industrument, knowing how to cook and wash.
Most students of musicians in the 18th century were girls because being able to play piano would "increase" their value for a good suitor.
The count of barcelona was 50 when he married the 14 year old queen of aragon in Lleida (Catalonia)
They had 5 kids.
She was promised as a a wife to Ramon Berenguer IV already at 1 year old but they waited til she was 14 to have the wedding (and sex).
This was in the 12th century.
using nobility as an example doesn't speak to how common it was throughout society, since they often married for alliances and such
but they were already engaged at 1 so it tells about their society when they waited till 14 and not a year later
That just means that 14 was (roughly) the youngest acceptable time, not that it was normal. Obviously they want to marry sooner rather than later in such a situation. Some people get married in their teens even today; it's just not very common.
Although people could get married younger, the avg marrying age in USA was 20-22 for women with men being 1-3 years older.
>18 and 23
That's still normal today.
not for wypipo, who are determined to make themselves extinct
I'm 31 and still frick 18 year olds
some people give me shit but I just don't care
Shakespeare was 18 when he married a 26 year old. It’s assumed she was prego and he was forced into it but there didn’t seem to be any stigma attached to him.
shit like 40 and 15 wasn't uncommon until maybe a century or so ago
40 and 15 was legal but still uncommon enough that basically only nobles did it. For everybody else the man needed to be young enough to still provide for the woman and their children for ~20 years. With only manual labor, without power tools.
18 and 23?
16 and 24?
are you fricking moronic you disgusting zoomer?
these are the ages that are normal now, in the past it was more like 12 and 45
the CURRENT average aoc in europe is 15, so yeah
case in point
Ummm sweetie... you do realize that a three year age gap is literally pedophilia, right?
ummm sweetie it looks like you don't know how things were back in the day.
such an age gap was basically thought of as nothing.
Thats just not true. Maybe in Muslum nations where they abuse women. In America from conception until the mid 21st century it was 20-25 for women with men being 2-3 years older.
bwahaha. I'm not doubting you, but I'm also glad that I don't live where you live.
I really don't care that you're a moron.
Not true at all, pedo larper. It was almost unheard of for a marriage to be consummated before a girl was 14, while a noble man was pressured to father heirs sooner rather than later, pressures which made both a man over 40 and a woman under 13 very uncommon on their own, and next to never happening together. Famously, some English (iirc) king was seen as disgusting by his lords for consummating his marriage very soon after his wife turned 13, and Leopold II of Belgium lost most public support later in his reign for taking a 16 year old mistress while he was in his 60s. Louis XV ended his engagement with his cousin Maria Ana when she was 6 because he thought 10 years was too long to wait to being producing heirs- which he wouldn’t have thought if it was common to see a woman as ready to deflower as soon as she started bleeding.
>On 21 February 1777, when he was 15 years old, he married his 30-year-old aunt the Infanta Benedita of Portugal. Benedita was an attractive woman and the main candidate for the wife of José.
No es fair Hermanos.
The idea age gap according to Aristotle was 37 (m) and 18 (f).
I recently did a family tree thing with Ancestry.com and a couple hundred years ago, there were lots of 40-50 year old dudes having kids with women in their 20s. I thought the ages of the men couldn't be right, but I guess they had to be according to the records.
Please see the Merchant's Tale of Chaucer
no one gives me shit for being 25 and my fiancée being 18. we're both hispanic so maybe that's why
Yeah whites are anti-fertility and will attack eachother for breeding.
>historically
When exactly?