>>2584328>hurr durr 1955 to 1960 is the same as the ancient world
You're quite dumb.>people who live in developing areas have more children, people who live in cities or developed areas have fewer children.
This has nothing to do with age of marriage.>>2584328>Just like you don't have any evidence that pedobears frolicked freely in the past with their eternal qt3.14's
I'm not claiming that. See >>2584101
Heck, fucking hunter gathering tribes recorded in contemporary times have a pretty low age of marriage (pretty much onset of puberty). This is indication of behavior of prehistoric past. Plus the many writings about law and customs indicates that early civilization wasn't that much different when it comes to age of marriage.
If you're having massive cognitive dissonance, that's your problem. Anyway, the past having low marriage age doesn't matter for liberal mentality of today since it's based on appeal to the current year. The fact that 12 year old girls could be enjoyed by a 40 year old in many ancient societies is not something that's going to convince people who appeal to novelty (or in this case modernity).