re: #32 Cinnabar

Puritans (and the English in general) had precontracts — more than an engagement, less than a marriage — once you had one, sex was okay. Another lapsed custom.

During the Church’s reign in the middle ages, it was not uncommon to have girls marry at the ages of 12-16. Basically once she could menstruate she was ready for consummation of the marriage (which sometimes even took place earlier). In that context, pre marital sex was certainly less prevalent and teaching abstinence was not really needed. Fast forward 500-600 years, where women have a status different from chattels, it would seem we are ready to have a more enlightened approach to sexuality and the teen years, particularly when I think most Republicans would want to see the age of consent not fall below its current age. My guess is if you pressed Santorum on this, he would see nothing wrong with girls marrying at 16. And he certainly would think girls marrying at 16 is better than them having protected pre marital sex while they obtain an education and become self sufficient productive members of society outside of the home.