Please do go check out squarespace using the link www.squarespace.com/brainfood Not only will you get 10% off, but you'll support this show and us being able to do super-deep dives on interesting topics like this one. Thanks!
If that Peasant girl was "HOT", its very likely that the Lord of the lands at least tried to get with her, if not down right rape the girl.. If she cried rape, or got pregnant (married or not), that Noble Lord would use his "Get out of jail free card", which is ' jus primae noctis', and walk away Scott free.. (forgive the pun)..
@@naughtybear2187 I think there are a lot of working class people already living and serving in the castle on a daily basis who would likely be friends and or family with the victims. There are a lot more people in the castle besides royals, and there is a lot more to leadership than just asserting dominance and walking all over the lower classes.
@@tjwoosta Lords were considered divine and either had knights or were knights. If someone assassinated a medieval lord you would have an army of knights burning the kingdom down or a mass inquisition, it would just cause mass suffering.
Also consider that nobles were incentivized to keep their serfs contently ploughing the fields. And that throughout time and place bastard children could contend for inheritance and status. Sleeping around could and did result in conflicts from bastard children and their supporters. This was not something most nobles wanted to deal with.
Exactly my thoughts, the concept just doesn't seem practical. It's one thing to do it to captured enemies, but your own subjects? They would rebel against this more violently than any tyranny.
I think these stories were spread around as the "fake news" of those times to turn people against nobles so they could get man to risk their life to avoid that to happen to their kids.
It was so real that King Ferdinand II of Aragón through the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486 or Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe, decreed that the "derecho de pernada" or "droit du seigneur" was abolished and deemed illegal (among other issues specified on the decree to free his catalan peasant subjects from onerous fees and mistreatments from their lords). Obviously the extent of this custom varied from country to country, from lordship to lordship but at the end it was more of a personal exercise... many may have exercised their "right" to do so and some may have not; we do not know whom exactly, when and where, but the fact that such law exist and specifically bans and condemns this so called "right", is proof enough that such practice actually existed and was performed at least on this area so while it is hard to proof that this was common practice everywhere around Europe it is silly to assure it did not existed.
"To display my power, privilege, and virility, I'm going to risk begetting on a peasant a son who'll have a valid claim to my estate before any legitimate sons I may sire."
“But because it’s her wedding night I can claim the bastard is her husband’s child. Unless she’s marrying a Moore and the baby is white as new-driven snow. Then I may be in trouble.” The timing of the “right” is what made it the widely believed thing it was-the wedding night is the one time you can be near certain this woman is lying with her husband, and so any resulting child can easily be denied as a product of that union, and that is the primary risk as at the time contagion theory wasn’t really a thing. It wasn’t “that woman gave me crotch-pox.” You just _got crotch pox_ - maybe from a daemon or curse or wrongdoing or imbalance of bodily humours, but not from another person.
@@mischa2643 - The thing is, there will be people willing to use the kid. "You're truly the eldest son. You deserve the throne, not So-and-so." That would always be a possibility. Fortunately, it was never a custom.
@@julietfischer5056 and the royalty, the nobility, would simply dismiss them, with prejudice. If they tried a, "legal," claim, the adjudicators were all nobility, or royalty, and would give zero legitimacy to these peasants claims. As for communicable disease, this was overwhelmingly the top cause of death around the world throughout history, up until about a hundred years ago, but still is the top cause of death to this day in many places. A death from disease or illness was commonplace, and until about 150 years ago was never understood to be spread by virus, bacteria, or other single cell organism, etc. Surprisingly many people, in many places, even to this day, this scientific understanding is doubted, if not outright rejected (in some places, it is still heresy to state such beliefs). The lower classes were treated far worse than most are willing to consider, for much of history, so this abhorrent practice, however uncommon or widespread, would not surprise me at all.
@@Metalbass10000 - As I said, there are always those who would see an opportunity. The Middle Ages covered several hundred years and the whole of Europe. You honestly think Baron Douchebag would hesitate to champion the cause of Lord Rapist's bastard if it were politically expedient?
Henry VIII's grandmother, Lady Margaret Beaufort, was married at 12 years young and gave birth to Henry Tudor, Henry VIII's father, at age 14. Her 24 year old husband died within a year of their marriage leaving her a widow at age 13.
@whiskerscat9287 That and from what I "vaguely" remember in my child development classes, do to the fact she was 12/13, her body didn't fully mature enough for pregnancy, so as such her 1st(& only) pregnancy was ESPECIALLY traumatic Some say it was this trauma that caused her to not mary & have more kids Others claimed her body had gone through such a difficult pregnancy that it effectively made her infertile, hence again, why she never remarried Obviously these are only theories from what I gather but I personally don't see why both can't be true/considered
In france we actually call it "droit de cuissage" or "right to thighs". You can still see references to it in protests signs today as jokes about the powerfuls.
Funny because *jus prima noctis/primae nocta* is aka "droid du seigneur" in English. ("the Lord's/seigneur's right") Mais, c'est bon ça, savoire comment tu dis ça en France (car c'est plus ... si c'etait vrai)
I also like the hypothesis wikipedia tells us about it : it could have been a way for a pretty woman to have a child of better social condition than his/her parents, if all parties agreed to it. The parents would then receive a part of the child's money ("pension") when said child would find a job after studies. The child would remain a potential inheritant for the noble, and the child would have a better life than if he/she lived by his/her parents. All parties would benefit from it. At least that's how I like to see it. fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_cuissage
All things considered the church might have something to say about this practice. Nobles taking brides on their wedding nights was bound to irritate more than a few clerics who lorded over the sacrament of marriage even if the commandment of "thou shall not commit adultery" was not always followed.
@@rubiconnnMaybe, but when dealing with laws that might challenge the church's authority regarding marriage it's another matter. Granted it's one thing to fool around with a man's wife or cheat on your own. That can be dealt with in confession. However, when it comes to saying the marriage is approved if I get "first night" then that might stir up some animosity with the church authorities who sanctified the marriages. Remember the church could excommunicate nobles just like anyone else and that could also affect their authority and inheritances.
@@Menelutorex Could Google also not answer any question on this channel? Let them ask the questions and don't put people down for it. You never know what the writers might find that would make any question more interesting.
You've obviously never owned a cat. 😆 🐱 they just show up one day follow you home and then try kill you for about a decade nearly catching their own deaths repeatedly.
Sorry, none of it was accurate. Like you know the whole romance between William Wallace and Isabella (the She wolf of France)? Well it turns out that if they met at all, she was three years old in her father's court.
I got a concentration in Medieval Studies (it's a few credits short of a major). The fact the Lord's Night DIDN'T happen was the first thing multiple professors hit at the starts of their classes. Braveheart did a real number on popular culture, like the myths about corsets. In recent years, the fact that that obnoxious myth is one of ones that GRRM bought has been slightly frustrating, as it is now perpetuated again (to be mega fair, availability of information when he started writing ASOIAF was nowhere NEAR what it is today). Not trying to knock GRRM here, though. Incidentally, GRRM's book "Fire and Blood" is REALLY interesting from the perspective of a medievalist. We're trained to examine primary sources to read between the lines and figure out what spin if any the writer has put on events, either because they believe them, eg. "Of course a pope wouldn't do X"; or because it's dangerous to write otherwise, eg. "King ______ the ______ will kill me if I say what actually happened, so I'll say . .. "; or they believe/want their side to look like they were in the right [that type of skew on facts will be very familiar to modern people]. The extant texts are FULL of that kind of stuff, it's really fun to parse if you enjoy mysteries. I rather think medievalist professors could use Fire and Blood as an intro text to that kind of technique of seeing what bias the writer had (the writer is from the Citadel. Does someone [including the writer] from the Citadel want others from the Citadel to look good? Does it benefit the Citadel for one side to win this conflict? Why is it that the writer tends to relate "scurrilous rumors" only when they're about specific people? Why did the writer skim over that event when they paid so much attention to this one? Is there a reason there was so much pressure put on this king to marry this specific person, when others prior had so much license to choose?). GRRM did a spectacular, spectacular job making something that reads VERY much like what we actually have from history. The sooner the Lord's Night as fact is dismissed from the cultural zeitgeist, the better.
It was so real that King Ferdinand II of Aragón through the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486 or Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe, decreed that the "derecho de pernada" or "droit du seigneur" was abolished and deemed illegal (among other issues specified on the decree to free his catalan peasant subjects from onerous fees and mistreatments from their lords). Obviously the extent of this custom varied from country to country, from lordship to lordship but at the end it was more of a personal exercise... many may have exercised their "right" to do so and some may have not; we do not know whom exactly, when and where, but the fact that such law exist and specifically bans and condemns this so called "right", is proof enough that such practice actually existed and was performed at least on this area so while it is hard to proof that this was common practice everywhere around Europe it is silly to assure it did not existed.
Well it may not have been very mainstream but I'm sure that there are examples of this happening since it has happened at other times throughout history. People with power tend to do some pretty nasty things at times. But I'd imagine that trying to instill this is a actual rule anywhere would probably have an uprising really fast
@@magicpyroninja "maybe someone did the thing sometime somewhere cause they specifically were a jerk" sure. But culturally people have an impression that it was widespread and common and institutionalized and normal. Nope.
@@annedavis3340 A year out in adding my own two cents, but from everything you detailed; I can only be reminded of the expression "History is written by the winners" For various reasons, a lot of things that happened were never recorded and things that didn't have been lionsed into lore. I mean the ancient Egyptians never wrote about any of their defeats, only their victories, but that does not mean their dynasties never went undefeated. And if Lord's Night ever did occur, it's likely that it was rather rare and even more so hushed up. It was so easy then, everything was dependent on the pen and especially if it was the monarch who took a fancy - but of course he'd not want to have himself demonised in such a manner having the desire to leave a lionsed legacy. Although if there's any good example as to why Prima Nocta is so prevalent - the likes of Henry VIII would be a good source of blame seeing as whilst he went through so many wives, he wasn't above extramarital affairs either.
As someone who has been in Industry for forty years and seen numerous women given a choice between meeting the boss in a hotel room or getting fired I would have to say no law would be required. Common practice is never documented.
Yes I've seen bosses abuse their power like this before too. And it's not just the threat of losing a job...there can be even stronger retaliation if they say 'no'
@@fishsmell2570 mate, it's only men who seem to think swapping sex in exchange for keeping a job & no retaliation would be a nice proposal. I've rarely seen women gain much from it except be able to avoid being fired. The boss still holds the power.
I finally did it! I found the first Simon Whistler video I ever watched! This popped up on my recommended over 3 years ago, and my husband and I have been consuming a ton of your content ever since.
I find it very impressive that your able to make such interesting videos. Being able to take a question that someone could easily Google and get an answer, then turning it into an extensive learning experience. Keep up the great work, it's always very enjoyable to see all the information you're able to bring forward
A perfect time to point out "assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". On this topic, there is no evidence. Thanks for putting a nail in this legend Simon.
It was so real that King Ferdinand II of Aragón through the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486 or Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe, decreed that the "derecho de pernada" or "droit du seigneur" was abolished and deemed illegal (among other issues specified on the decree to free his catalan peasant subjects from onerous fees and mistreatments from their lords). Obviously the extent of this custom varied from country to country, from lordship to lordship but at the end it was more of a personal exercise... many may have exercised their "right" to do so and some may have not; we do not know whom exactly, when and where, but the fact that such law exist and specifically bans and condemns this so called "right", is proof enough that such practice actually existed and was performed at least on this area so while it is hard to proof that this was common practice everywhere around Europe it is silly to assure it did not existed.
I was 39 when I got married for the first and only time. My husband was 36, and it was his first marriage. We've been married almost 22 years and it's been wonderful.
Thanks much Simon for yet another exceptional video. This one in particular is of interest to me as I have had arguments with my father and brother about this very topic and the whole setup to the movie Brave heart in much the same way you said in this video. I tried tell them it was a widely spread falsehood that had been over time, taken as fact. They didn’t believe me. I can not show this video as evidence to my brother as he died on the 2nd of this past Nov. if losing him wasn’t enough, it was 2 day after my Birthday and on my Mother’s birthday. I only bring this up because I turned him into a great fan of this channel as well as a few of you others and I know the video would for sure have proved me right and changed his mindset on the subject. To my surprise, after this video and a tad bit of extra looking, my dad saw the light and came around too, claiming the video was more info then he has been able to find himself on the topic. So, thanks again Simon, very much. I’ve enjoyed all of your content on not just this but all of your channel, especially Business Blaze, that ones just too funny. This channel helped me with that friendly argument I had with my dad and brother. It also turned my father onto your channel. I’m gonna show him some of your other ones a little later as he really like this one. Take care Simon, keep up with the fantastic work, and from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Linda Bealer thank you. I appreciate it very much. Y’all’s kind word really are touching and do help in hard times. I never thought it to be so but such gestures are helpful. Thank you.
That movie was a great work of total fiction. Nothing in that movie whatsoever happened the way it did in the movie. The names are correct, everything else is nonsense.
There are historic evidence of middle eastern warlords and such using a similar tactic to build harems. The largest harem in history was made in part with the use of marriage grabbing
@jay Being a teen boy with a crush on some girl in Warren Jeff's group was nearly a death sentence. Worse still if the girl reciprocated those feelings. Yeah, he deserves to rot in hell.
Good video. I’ve always thought it unlikely that such a disruptive tradition would have been practiced regularly. The confusion over paternity alone would have destabilized the local society.
Yeah, and not only that, but he took down the original video to post this one. The original was word for word the same because it was taken from their own article done in 2014: www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/09/jus-primae-noctis-fact-fiction So not just covered the same topic, but the exact same wording. The only things different in this video are the bonus facts and the ad in the middle.
@@sambeck2510 not as much conspiracy, more one of many ways to show how debauched and removed from god the nobles were. (if you needed to rile the masses etc). So... More slander I guess.
My latin senses are tingling over the J at the beginning of JUS. They didn't have one basically, they used the I in its place. IUS ("Use") also gets rid if the anglified pronounciation ;) That is a mere spec on a wonderful and interesting video, though!
I just realized another downside were this practice to exist: expectation. "M'lord, tonight is me wedding night and I've noticed you've barely looked at me wife, not without flinching that is. Is she not good enough for you? You'll hurt her feelings, you will. She spent an hour shaving her back in anticipation of your nocturnal cobbling of her giblets. "
This practice was a real thing when Margaret Mead, anthropologist, studied the local culture of Papua, New Guinea in the early twentieth century. The British colonists and military put a stop to it.
@@johnmarquez7413 - You must not be familiar with Margaret Mead. She was and is a highly celebrated anthropologist associated with the Smithsonian Institute. Her work is without question except for the times she, herself, questioned.
If it's normal in your culture, then, "ahem," it's NORMAL in your culture. It wouldn't be any more objected to or commented on than spreading fermented fish guts on your food for flavor. (Dig into the old Ketchup recepies for that gem, and remember, these were things you cooked, not purchased at a store, so they KNEW what was in the condiment.)
@Trebuchet - As in all good science, there has been controversy regarding Margaret Mead, particularly regarding Somoa. Try reading "The Trashing of Margaret Mead: Anatomy of an anthropological controversy" by Paul Shankman. The general conclusion by anthropologists is that some of her work was flawed, but that most of it was most excellent and highly worthy of study.
Haroon Abdul Majeed The topic here are abuses against the lowest socioeconomic rung of society. The video suggests that because Europeans could find no law sanctioning it, it was not widespread.
Haroon Abdul Majeed You and I agree that there was never any official law sanctioning its use; that’s because in the eyes of the law most people had no rights. That’s why there had to be a Magna Carta in the first place. That’s (in part) what the Peasant Revolt of 1381 was about. Serfdom allowed Lords to enter homes unobstructed, to trade sexual favors for largely unkept promises of reduced taxes and fees, rape wives and daughters, steal from serfs, etc. The Magna Carta attempted to fix this (mostly for the church’s benefit) by stating that ALL are subject to the law, even the king. The abuses of the English crown against the Irish are yet another example. This video ignores the reality of people’s lives in favor of suggesting a sanitized narrative.
I've been watching for awhile. I ain't stopping anytime soon. I luv you guys. But I gotta say to Simon , props to the beard bro. Don't take this the wrong way please, you gotta reign in that mane. If you disagree, cool.
Another great video--thanks! Just to check though, do you mean reach a crescendo? Crescendo is getting louder (often gradually), where diminuendo is the opposite.
Then there is my maternal grandmother who was born in 1912, married at 15 and had her first child the same year. Then in between having 12 more kids became a nurse.
John Karavitis Correct. Most couples have lived together sometimes for years before actually getting married. And sometimes rather than going through the expense of getting divorced they just remain married. A close friend was married to his wife for about 30 years when she died. They had not been together for 25 of those years.
@@daraghokane4236 And if the "got to" steal from you, we should say they got to "steal" from you, not "they got to get shared with by you". They "get to" RAPE.
While I see your point I am actually quite glad it's not that title, I probably wouldn't have clicked on it. The current title gets the idea across and also sets the tone. My take is this is not so much a video essay about sexual violence against woman as it is about customs surrounding marriage and consummation traditions in medieval times and that kind of thing. To be clear, I think violence against woman is a topic that is important but it takes a certain kind of sensitivity ...and idk if homeboy here would be my top choice for presenters of RU-vid videos on that topic, no shade, love you homeboy. Anyway thank you for attending my Ted talk
11:56 - In 1950, the oldest Baby Boomers were 4 years old, way to young to get married. The low age is that of the Baby Boomer's parents who had just come home from World War II. It's when must U.S. Suburbs began being built for all of those newly returned/newly wed Servicemen and their young families!!
"Marriages where both partners have college degrees only end in divorce 21% of the time." we can't afford to divorce we need those spousal tax breaks if we ever want to pay off our student loans. In all seriousness though I would assume it has a lot to do with both partners having had time to "sow their oats" as it were and rather then just getting married in the heat of passion actually finding people that they share a common interest with outside of physical.
Has nothing to do with 'sowing oats' if that were the case, divorce would have been higher back when fewer people ever 'sowed their wild oats' in the past. I think it has to do with the fact that if you went to college, and your partner went to college, you are more mature and 'well to do' than the average person. You make wiser choices generally speaking, which leads to less divorce. My 2 cents. My grandparents era had high school sweethearts marry routinely after highschool and stay together for life, including my own grandparents on both sides.
There's no basis for thsi ridiculous assumption and it doesn't follow older trends. Couples used to get married younger, whoel virgins, and stayed together. Stop trying to excuse and justify promiscuity you degenerate.
@Cancer McAids Mmmbullshit! They stayed married because they had an entirely different set of values, which prioritized child rearing and productivity over all else. Divorced women should be shamed. As should divorced men. Nobody was forced to be married. Not even evangelicals do that anymore. Now I know you're just speaking from the ass.
Hm, you mention a video called "Did Any Medieval Knight Ever Actually Rescue a Damsel in Distress?" but that does not actually exist. Maybe already filmed but not yet released?
I've tried looking up the other video you've mentioned but I couldn't find it. It would help if there was a link in the description for mentioned videos.
This practice was depicted in the Book of Maccabees. Judith was commanded to lay with the Greek governer. She gave him cheese to make him thirsty, and wine to quench his thirst. When he passed out from the wine, she took his sword and decapitated him.
I think you might be mixing up your stories. The Book of Judith talks of a beheading, but she was not told to sleep with anyone by order nor was there a greek governor in the story. This book was likely contemporaneously written around the time of the Maccabees rebellions, but it's not included in any of the Maccabees four books (of which only the first appears to be written during that period anyway).
Groom: "What is the meaning of this?" Bride: "I had to. It's the law. " Groom: "Since when does that apply to plumbers?" Bride: "Oh, I can't even read. What do I know?"
@@marccolten9801 It's like telling a joke about an African slave in the US and the punchline being something about being whipped and then people are supposed to laugh. A joke about a law that enforced women getting raped just isn't funny. I'm accidentally using my husband's name here, I'm NOT Danny Smolen, I'm his wife, and it's not funny, even if it's clever.
@@MrBizteck It's like telling a joke about an African slave in the US and the punchline being something about being whipped and then people are supposed to laugh. A joke about a law that enforced women getting raped just isn't funny. I'm accidentally using my husband's name here, I'm NOT Danny Smolen, I'm his wife, and it's not funny, even if it's clever.
I must apologise I enjoy your content so much that I forget to press the like button but I will go back and do it to all the videos I’ve watched sorry ha ha ha I’m just rushing to the next one. Aussie Coin Hunter RU-vid
@@oltedders Yep, he started with a hurdy-gurdy but switched to the violin during the church's crack down on lascivious instruments. The crank was seen as quite improper.
actually, back when people couldn't get divorced due to church law. You could "sell" your wife to another man instead. This lead up to men bringing their wives into a tavern with a collar and leash and putting her up for sale. What makes this custom even stranger is often the entire thing was prearranged and a specific guy would be on hand to buy her. Making it curious exactly which of the two really initiated the proceedings. Hence the phrase " take my wife "...
Median age means half the sample was below the median, and half the sample was above. That doesn't tell us the distruibution. For instance, if most of those who married younger than 20 did so at age 14, and the other half was married between 20 and 49, the median age would be 20, but the most common age to be married at would be 14. More informative would be to know the lower and upper ages of the middle 50%. Just knowing the median age doesn't really say much about when people got married.
Common sense will tell you that this really did happen, maybe not frequently or as a rule, but just imagine a feudal country with lords that had something resembling absolute power and young peasant girls who as often as not were pretty hot. And you don't think they took advantage of this? The exploits of Uday and Qusay Hussein are pretty much an Arabic take on this.
I've read that it was Gengis Khan (or someone in his army), and the purpose was to make rape more convenient. I dunno how reliable this is, I can't remember the source because I saw it years ago.
Hi Simon, did you check your divorce rate numbers against the practice to divide the number of people by divorces and NOT the number of marriages by divorces? This mistake happens rather often by using the skewed US-numbers. The number of marriages and divorces should be used to determine divorce rates. The number of marriages is declining in the US since the 50s so the common mistake is to use the skewed calculation insinuating that the divorce rate is down. If the number of marriages is down and using total number of people divided by divorces skewes the numbers.
So they killed their servants and used their guts to warm their feet? I bet that was a bloody mess. Seems like it would be more trouble than its worth. Oh not to mention completely immoral and disgusting.
I love it when he forgets to trim the beard for a few days and it shakes ever time he needs to emphasize a word. Like grass on the other side of the not actually flat Earth.
It was so real that King Ferdinand II of Aragón through the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe of 1486 or Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe, decreed that the "derecho de pernada" or "droit du seigneur" was abolished and deemed illegal (among other issues specified on the decree to free his catalan peasant subjects from onerous fees and mistreatments from their lords). Obviously the extent of this custom varied from country to country, from lordship to lordship but at the end it was more of a personal exercise... many may have exercised their "right" to do so and some may have not; we do not know whom exactly, when and where, but the fact that such law exist and specifically bans and condemns this so called "right", is proof enough that such practice actually existed and was performed at least on this area so while it is hard to proof that this was common practice everywhere around Europe it is silly to assure it did not existed.
A part of premise of this video is based on the concept of marriage from a modern standpoint. That's fine for Middle Ages, but marriage in today's form is actually a somewhat recent contrivance (from a historical perspective). In some periods, marriages where handled as literal contracts that didn't necessarily include the "till death do us part" clause in a manner that was meaningfully enforceable. And, secret weddings happened all the time, only to be annulled or simply forgotten about as one or the other simply moves on. There are still some cultures today that view marriages as an at-will arrangement, where either party can just literally walk away (similar to how we view bf/gf relationships in Western Culture).
You struck out on this one, badly. Did you think a young peasant woman would know how to register a complaint, stand up to be counted, without herself being the first casualty in this fight? In today's world, rape often goes unchallenged by young girls who are overwhelmed on so many levels. It was the law of the land at one time, don't tell me there were not plenty of men who took advantage of it at times. "not one documented case" indeed! There was no one documenting it!
SIMON: *You guys keep using The Opening-Theme Music🎶 as **_"LIST25's"_** Opening-Theme,* which has been used by them for MANY YEARS now! I'd revert back to the old(er) theme prior to this one. I love-love-LOVE your work; whether it's *THIS channel, TopTenz, Bio/Geographics, BusinessBlaze, etc-etc!!*
The film "The War Lord" with Charlton Heston takes this as its premise but them proceeds to tell a surprisingly clever tale of what happens when the peasants, who were begrudgingly accepting of the practice, find out the lord wants to keep the woman for himself long term. THAT they won't tolerate.
80% of no fault divorce is initiated by women. The government has given a big incentive for women to get divorced and I find it hard to believe that less is happening. Although men getting screwed over in common law marriage is not documented as divorce is it?
Women do not get government incentives for divorce, not from what I've ever heard of. That's typically games people play when there's money, politics or power plays involved. Most "common" people don't do that drama. I was married for 10 years, paid for my own divorce and my ex husband paid child support part of the time. We had no property disputes as we had rented apartments during our marriage. I took care of my daughters myself. They went to live with their father a year and a half ago after 9 years with me. Most women do not look for government hand outs nor do we screw over our ex husbands. Those that do are few and far between
@@NikkiDocherty74 not government incentive rather the law allows you to take all a man's money and when he is living in a car paycheck to paycheck you can simply increase his child support payment so he has to turn to crime or go to jail because he is unable to pay back child support which adds up while you're in jail making it an indefinite detention unless someone outside the jail decided to pay it for you. The system is rigged against men. And no women who screw over men are the majority you're the minority although I don't know if that's a fitting label because you still stole child support from him.
@@asjmpickle I didn't take all of my ex husband's money in child support. That's not how it works. Child support is determined by the case worker based on his income. It was through the state, NOT a private lawyer. I had nothing to do with the rate, that did not involve me in any way. I never appealed for additional support. I also did not have him put in jail. I would never do such a thing. What lawyer/government worker would jail someone for such a trivial amount of arrears and why? Also why would you ask such a thing? I save all my documents and records, financial and otherwise so that I can prove my financial status and that my children were cared for. Also, when my ex husband and i separated in 2010 he left us for false pretenses in an apartment on the verge of eviction. He asked for divorce. It took some time to afford it, but i paid for it myself. My daughters and i went to stay with my grandmother for a few months until i could save up for an apartment. He went to stay with friends In a nearby town. There has been a huge amount of lies told about me and this situation In the past 10 years and I am going to correct it.
@@NikkiDocherty74 really? Because I know a few men living in their cars working 60+ hours to keep out of jail because their child support payments are more than a full-time job could pay. My dad lives with my 31 year old brother but is still paying back child support on both my brother and I. He owes 150k+ in back child support not because he skipped on it but because he earned less money than the child support payment
YES !! HOLLYWOOOD DID MAKE A FILM ABOUT A LORD OF THE VILLAGE DEFLOWER A VIRGIN BRIDE !!!! MOVIE WAS " THE WAR LORD " STARRING CHARLTON HESTON & ROSEMARY FORYTHE. ( 1970'S). I THOUGHT IT WAS SHOCKING !!! HOWEVER, ITS POSSIBLE FROM U.K. (2021).
In an anthropology class taken forever ago and now murky in my mind, the prof said the idea and stories around prima noctis sort of evolved out of ancient "sacred prostitution" practices (the existence of which are also strongly debated) where young, unmarried, virgin women would need to have sex with someone before marriage for various reasons. Like, reporting to the temple to act as a temporary priestess as preparation to getting married, and needing to sleep with the first pilgrim who asked as part of those duties (which Herodotus condemns as a practice of the Babylonians), or in specific cultures where blood is considered polluting, having a priest deflower women in order to have him deal with the pollution of the first-time blood. This then evolved from priests having prima noctis, to lords and rulers, since a priest might not be available, and the rules would be considered chosen by divine right to be rulers, lending them a bit of sacredness. There was also some of the kings sleeping with priestesses as a symbolic marriage (a practice in ancient Sumer) getting blurred into the mythos, since the medieval time equivalent of a priestess, a nun, was a virgin. But I'm not a historian and it was forever ago.
wait... isint the median number of a group just the middle of the number range? so if the numbers ranged from 1 to 9, the "median" would be 5, while if there was only 5 total numbers used as: one 9, three 1s and a 3, the "median" is still 5, the "mean", or average would be 3, while the "mode" was 1.... why do i still remember this stuff?
At what average age did people live to? I know child birth took out a percentage of women but so did farming accidents, disease, fighting, other accidents. If you only live to 50, you may want to get started on a family sooner rather than later.
It depends where and when. The Middle Ages lasted for a loooong time, and that included times of war, peace, plague, health, overabundant crops, famine etc. In Late Medieval England, on average, the life expectancy of a noble who survived childhood was 64. Higher than the Ancient Romans and Greeks, a tad lower than an upper class Victorian and only 8 1/2 years lower than current general life expectancy.
