"Pro-marital" taxation - how does it work?

[Sheilbh]

Wait, wait, so plain love, passion and wanting to shag without having the girl's family after your ass after she got pregnant by your manly attention not good reasons to marry the said girl in the 15th century?

Not in the 15th century, no.  There's a great deal of interest in the sexual life of people in the Medieval period because they married a lot later than they did in the Renaissance.  I believe prior to the 16/17th century the average age for a man to marry - from the records we have - was 24 and for a woman 21.  Obviously there was a great deal of sexual desire prior to that.  From the records we have we know that it was common for male and female unmarried servants, for example, to share rooms and beds and in the 15th century there's a movement throughout Northern Italy to clean up the sexual lives of the lower classes.  There are groups of penitent monks who go around raving about sodomy both between men and between women (in effect oral and anal seem to have been a problem), in their opinion this was a very serious and very common problem.

As ever with the period we don't know a lot about it, but from what we know it's more than possible that people were sating their desires without even the slightest risk of pregnancy.

the difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?

Indeed.  I think there are real problems with our welfare system.  I think that the economic issues also have knock-on social effects such as not getting married and the effects that has on children, but also in terms of lifestyle and health.  I always find it shocking that there are estates in Glasgow that have a lower male life expectancy than the Gaza Strip; that's shameful in our society.

But I welcome that the Tories have started to at least vaguely bother about this stuff and though I disagree with him on a number of issues I really rate Iain Duncan-Smith's work that has prompted a lot of this.

[Sheilbh]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

Don't forget the whores.  As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.

[Pat]

the difficulty now is why do we still have losers when so many opportunities are thrust into people's paths?

Perhaps losing or winning a game you're not interested in playing isn't a very big deal to everyone. Different people require different games.

Don't forget the whores.  As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.

A modern testimony to this would be the quite extraordinary Falkland rd. in Mumbai, which, as my sikh taxi driver told me, is where the poor men go for sex before they're married.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?

Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.

The problem is that it is almost impossible to know what the scale of infanticides, cuckoldry etc were. Bear in mind though that the overwhelming majority lived in small villages, the possibility of concealment or privacy would be much lower than today.

I've chosen a harsh economic environment for my example, the illegitimacy rate increased in the the more benign conditions of the 18th century. Nevertheless I do believe that failed families are an immense burden on any economy, even one as wealthy as the modern West.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

Don't forget the whores.  As my tutor said when lecturing on Blake, 'when marriage is expected, prostitution thrives'.

Yes indeed. If it wasn't for whores I think that 17th century puritanism might have gone even more OTT. The sexual frustration back then must have been incredible......

[Drakken]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

Does that percentage include children who were infanticided, abandoned, given in adoption, or raised by a parent other that the biological father, like cuckolds or grandparents?

Not being cheeky here, I find that percentage surprising.

The problem is that it is almost impossible to know what the scale of infanticides, cuckoldry etc were. Bear in mind though that the overwhelming majority lived in small villages, the possibility of concealment or privacy would be much lower than today.

I've chosen a harsh economic environment for my example, the illegitimacy rate increased in the the more benign conditions of the 18th century. Nevertheless I do believe that failed families are an immense burden on any economy, even one as wealthy as the modern West.

Didn't in 18th century Britain, especially in urban areas, the hard toil of everyday manual life, the cheap wages, and the appearance of cheaply distillated alcohols like gin in taverns and thus increased access to a cheaper alchohol, play a role as well in the rise of illegitimacy in that period?

[Richard Hakluyt]

@ Sheilbh, you said "But I welcome that the Tories have started to at least vaguely bother about this stuff and though I disagree with him on a number of issues I really rate Iain Duncan-Smith's work that has prompted a lot of this."

Agree with you about IDS, his recent efforts in this area show that he genuinely cares as well, I've been quite impressed. Of course he's not in government yet, which always seems to have an adverse effect on british politicians 

[crazy canuck]

I'm sure the average 15th century farm-working yeoman thought about economic arrangement first and foremost when marrying his wife.

99% of the time, it's because he wooed her and wanted to shag her without being casted out of the village and vilipended in chair for being a cad.

No, you're applying Victorian values here. Prior to then, marriage was almost entirely for economic reasons. Though not for actual cash, it was having a healthy wife who could do chores about the farm to bring in more crops, and breed the next generation of farmhands to work in the fields then keep you in your old age when you're no longer healthy enough to do so yourself.

And didnt change that much in agrarian societies.  My grandfather told me he looked for similar qualities before choosing his wife (my grandmother).   In a postmodern society I assume people also look at potential mates with at least an eye to how well that mate will contribute to the well being of the family - which is probably why so many decide marriage isnt worth it.

[Richard Hakluyt]

@ Drakken - I'm not really sure how much of a feature "Gin Lane" was in the country as a whole. As opposed to 18th century London which was the first place and time in Britain that we had a large enough city for anonymity to be routine.

It does sound very likely though 

[Pat]

However, I don't see this really working that wall for marriages. Usually when people want to divorce each other, they do not do it for financial reasons, but because they can't live with each other - so how will having "pro-marital" tax benefits help this? Same with single parenting - it's not like single mothers suddenly will find fathers and foster fathers for their children, because this will get them a better taxation scheme.

Yet you're a staunch believer in social engineering otherwise.  Interesting.

Culture is what separates men from animals. Throughout history all cultures of value have practiced social engineering, or, rather, cultural and civilizational refinement. The problem today isn't too much social engineering, but too little, too irrational, and not good enough.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Richard, if you are correct in your identification of the issue, why would anyone defend tax policy that gives more deductions/benefits to "single" people living together then to married people living together?

Why shouldn't they be treated equally?

The problem here is the sheer complexity of the tax and welfare systems and the way they interact. Being counted as single, married or co-habiting may or may not be a benefit depending on circumstances. So, for example, a "couple" will get far more state benefits if they run two "separate" households then admit that they are an item.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Drakken, bastardy rates in England in the 17th century were below 2% and age at first marriage was surprisingly high (27 years), there was no effective contraception available - silliness drops when a society disapproves and/or can't afford it.

study of sexual mores in sexually repressed countries can help with that. A good start is by looking at muslim societies.
People are suprisingly inventive at getting nooky, with or without approval of society. And lets not forget the plethora of special tricks and treatments available to women of which men are not told, ever! (tricks that have receded into folklore in our liberal societies)

[Pat]

Kore and kourus unearthed together (~ 550 BC)



"Marker of Phrasikleia
I could be called kore (maiden)
for ever instead of wedded
by the gods thus being named
[Aris]tion of Paros created me"
(Translated by Thomas Sakoulas)


"Phrasikleia holds a lotus at its breast by way of symbol of its continued and eternally unplucked state. Like the words of the inscription, the rosettes below each breast, and the additional lotuses, alternately half-open and closed, that wreathe the maiden's crown signal a blossoming into womanhood even as they affirm that this floraison has yet to occur. Together the different elements cohere in making the metonymic representation a visualization of the maiden in her social role, preserving her at the very threshold of the marriage to which she could once have aspired. ", Deborah Tarn Steiner



edit: It is not obvious from above context, but I assume this "marker of Phrasikleia" to mark Phrasikleias grave, a woman who presumably died a virgin and was celebrated for her chastity with this monument (at least the text above is listed under "Grave epigrams" in one of my books on greek literature).

[The Brain]

Pic is NSFW.

[Jacob]

A single parent never gets a break in their day to day handling of the kids - sure they can have babysitters, daycare and grandparents, but it is not really the same thing.

That depends on what other support network the single parent may have.  If grandparents, aunts or uncles are involved in raising the child then there may well be plenty of opportunities for breaks.  The child-raising situation is not necessarily parent(s) + children.