Adolescence and Marrying Young

Recent allegations against Roy Moore have proved to be polarizing in multiple ways.  Besides the expected politicizing of these reports, another issue has come to the forefront of the discussion--marrying young.  Many Christians, even some of his supporters, were taken aback by his candid response to these accusations.  By his own admission, he dated much younger women back in the day.  Far from a confession, however, this admission was designed to extenuate his relationship choices.  He went on to explain that in the good ol' days back in Alabama dating younger girls was not only a normal practice, but it was actually encouraged.  Young girls were encouraged to find older, established men whom they could marry and with whom they could start a family.  Upon hearing his response, many found this concept a bit to high on the creepiness scale, especially given Moore's current age, but is it really that creepy?  It does not appeal to our modern sensibilities, but it is inappropriate?

Let me begin by clarifying that I am not intending to address the Moore situation specifically.  No one but God, those women, and Moore knows what happened.  Also, to be clear, groping women against their wills is wrong, no matter how old a woman is!

So, is it inappropriate for men in their thirties to pursue girls in their mid-teens?  The modern answer is, "Of course!", but is it that simple?  Our modern answer is actually abnormal, historically speaking.  In fact, the average age of marriage is higher than ever before in history.  Right or wrong, our societal norm, and not Roy Moore, is historically abnormal.  When addressing an issue as sensitive as this, we need to make sure not to think anachronistically.  It is easy to impose our modern ideas onto a story like this, but we must remember that different cultures and eras, even within the last 50 years, have different concepts of "normal."  We can look back and analyse behavior, but it is not fair to judge someone for doing something that was considered normal in his day.  I have not done enough research to confirm his description of Alabama in the 70's, but it seems perfectly consistent with my understanding of history.  

Why has our understanding of this issue so different today?  There are at least two reasons.  First of all, women are no longer socially and economically dependent on men, which means that young women are free to establish their own careers and do not need to find a husband to provide stability.  Marriage was, and often still is, and economic arrangement.  A society that glorifies indepedence and marrying for love really can't fathom this, but it wasn't really that long ago that it was entirely normal in our own country.

Secondly, America loves adolescence.  This is another recent innovation.  This idea that young people between the ages of 15-25 should sow wild oats and generally waste time is also historically abnormal, and it has only been made possible by the type of economy that we have.  In agricultural economies all members of the family are expected to play their part in making sure the family survives.  This difference in mindset also means that young people are raised differently.  Most modern fifteen-year-olds would definitely not be ready for dating or marriage, but that is a result of upbringing, not biology.  In a different time many of that age range would have been ready to start a family.  Today it would not normally be advisable because teenagers in that age range simply aren't as mature or life-ready as they were in a by-gone era.  It's also important to remember that no two people mature, physically, emotionally, or mentally, at the same exact rate.  One person might be ready to marry at 17, and another might not be ready until 30, so time spent on this earth is not necessarily an accurate gauge of readiness for marriage.

You may be utterly aghast at what you have read so far.  "We have evolved past that sort of barbaric behavior!" you insist.  Well, maybe there is some credence to that idea.  Maybe waiting to get married is better, but where do we draw the line?  How do we establish the appropriate minimum age for being romantically involved?  18?  How incredibly arbitrary!  21?  Well, if you can drink, I guess you should be able to get married?  16 maybe?  That's too young!  Give her the pill so she can philander, but Heaven forbid she actually get into a relationship with the design to marry!  Trying to determining a minimum age is a fool's errand, given the different cultural and economic factors that affect readiness for marriage.  Sexual maturity has historically been that line of demarcation.  Beyond that, it is difficult to establish any sort of biological or chronological standard that will apply across cultures and borders.

Does this mean that Moore wasn't creepy?  Not necessarily.  Maybe he was, but that's not the point.  The point is that we must be careful not to assume that he is guilty of being a sexual predator simply because a cultural norm seems creepy to us.  Maybe we think that that cultural norm is wrong or unwise, but that doesn't change the historical reality of the matter.  Throughout history there have been many thirty-year-olds who wed fifteen-year-olds, whether we like it or not.  Moore may or may not be guilty of inexcusable crimes, but his disparity in age is not enough to assume that his behavior was criminal.