Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

If not, then you have to consider, what makes it abusive? Is it possible to set the situation up in a way that it is not abuse?

I was involved in a weird situation over 20 years ago. I was in my 30s and one time, the neighbour girl, who was 9 at the time, came on to me, tried rubbing her butt on my crotch. I freaked out and did my best to push her off gently. After I pushed her off, she tried again by pulling down her pants and panties then bending over in front of me, which freaked me out more.

I had to leave the place to take myself out of this situation. I found out later from the girl's mother that she was exposed to a stripper show while she was supposed to be sleeping and peeked at an adult bachelor party at their house and ever since she was imitating the stripper with every male should could get her hands on. So the girl wasn't abused.

She was persistent and she got another neighbour in trouble because his wife happened to catch him as the girl did the same thing to him. His wife couldn't believe that the girl did that on her own. I interfered and took the wife to talk to the girl's mom.

Had it been another younger adult, let's say 18 who had no self control and he responded to her, would he be abusing her?

Abuse is about harm. This girl wasn't being harmed and maybe a hard rejection would cause her mental scars, so I see it as a grey area, like almost every other human condition.

if the age is defined as 'calendar year age' have characters on another planet with 900-day years

Someone is going to do the opposite and have their characters on a planet with 100-day years. "See, we're not even close to violating the 14-year-old rule! Why, all my characters are 30 years old! Sure, they won't hit puberty for another 10 years on average, but they're 30. Says so right here!"

Similar to video games that just happen to have characters from different races whose adults look just like pre-pubescent humans.

All sorts of ways: if the age is defined as 'calendar year age' have characters on another planet with 900-day years.

Hell, look no farther than Star Trek.

The Ocompa had a lifespan of around 9 Earth years, and reached sexual maturity at around 3. I have been binge watching Voyager lately, and it was amusing to hear Kes talk about being 4 years old, and at the peak of her fertility.

Or as a frequent joke I make in here, is sex with a 4 year old dog underage? That is close to 40 in equivalent human years, but unquestionably under 14 years old.

Girl is that vampire from Anne Rice's books who was turned when she was six.

I did that in Legacy of a Legend on here, but specifically discussed with Laz first, with the ruling that I could say she was having sex, but not get graphic descriptions of her body or actual descriptions of sex with her.

At the end of the 19th century the age of consent among the several states was in the range of 10 - 12.

This is consent for marriage.

Most areas at that time still had "seduction laws" on the books. In other words, have sex with a woman and not marry her, you could go to jail.

Early teen marriages were not common.

Starting married life in the early to mid-teens was very common for hundreds of years. While, many people point at the old parish marriage records pointing to people getting married at later ages they forget that the majority of people of those older periods did not have formal marriages in churches as they simply started living together with parental approval, and all the very old parish records only show the marriages of the upper and middle class people who had money to pay the church for such services. Yes, some priests did short marriage services for the young poor people, but they very rarely recorded them as they needed to account to their bishop for the monies revived for services conducted as recorded in the parish records.

It's like the belief that people didn't live as long in the past whereas, human life span has not significantly increased over the centuries.

Are you arguing life span, or life expectancy? It was certainly possible for someone to live to be 100 years of age centuries ago. The likelihood of that happening was somewhere between slim to none, because the life expectancy, even for the highest members of society, was barely 70. Considering you had about a 50% chance of dying before you were 21 back then, that's not great odds.

And yes, Ernest does have a basis to make his claim regarding young births. The big thing then was if you survived your first one, which many women didn't. That was just part of life then.

She had to be able to provide labor and needed a dowry of some kind to support her if she outlived her husband.

An aspect only relevant to the rich - not the general population.

A woman of any social class had to bring property of some kind.

That only applied to the rich like the nobility as well as the upper and middle class people. The poor had no property or had almost nothing else if they were lucky enough to have a family farm. Serfs and villiens had no property other than their clothes. I suggest you go read some history books on the middle ages and medieval times, then try for the older cultures for their situations.

There were systems and charities specifically to provide doweries for the poor. Or the daughters wound up in convents.

I have read many history books, and they were written by historians who did proper research of source material. Dowries were only for the families of the rich, not the poor and propertyless people. The poor and propertyless were the majority of the population for most of history.

Dowries were only for the families of the rich, not the poor and propertyless people. The poor and propertyless were the majority of the population for most of history.

Oh not at all. Those of all classes had a dowry. It represented the bride's half of the contract. Now for the nobility it involved things like land and money, but for the lower classes it was no less important.

Depending on the class and profession, it could be anything from livestock and seed, to linens and tools. For most, linens were the norm. That after all was one of the "jobs" of the women after all, making cloth. This is also an ancient custom, dating back well over 2,000 years. What in the US was called a "Hope Chest" was once called the "Dower Chest". And would be filled with linens by the family of the bride, to be used or sold as needed once the couple was married.

If you mean a dowry of cash or land, that is true. But the lower classes rarely saw money, so like everything largely dealt in barter goods.

Those of all classes had a dowry.

To have a dowry you need to have some sort of spare items of value to be used as such, and the great majority of the people did not have anything spare to use as such.

Yes, the custom of dowry is millennia old, but it was never practised by everyone as not everyone could afford to include a dowry. Inf act, some cultures did the reverse where the male had to provide a payment to the family for the bride.

To have a dowry you need to have some sort of spare items of value to be used as such, and the great majority of the people did not have anything spare to use as such.

And I suppose they also slept in the mid and wore loin cloths.

In countries with manorial systems the poor were very significant. The lord had to keep track of his property - including the serfs/peasants he owned. By the same token slave accounts don't show births to young teen slaves.

Uhhhh, peasants and serfs were not slaves. They had very clear rights, and were not "property".

Also, depending on what era you are talking about they several times had real power. So why you are trying to call them "slaves", I have no idea. But once again, it goes right back to literacy.

The rich (nobles) could afford scribes to record their records, the poor could not. The nobles kept their own records, where would a peasant keep their records?

You are making large assumptions here, which simply do not follow history. Not the first time I have heard of such though, but lack of records does not prove your case. In fact, there were almost no records of anything, births or deaths or marriages. Unless you were wealthy enough to afford a scribe, and had a location to safeguard the records.

As to serfs - in central and Eastern Europe they were property and could be bought, sold and traded. Rhe owners of the lands to which they were attached kept records of them.

Serfs were not slaves that could be bought and sold like the slaves in the USA had been. They were indentured servants that were usually connected to the land they worked and who bossed them about was the person who was the legal owner of the manor land. A villien was very similar to a serf, but not exactly the same as many of the villien class were indebted servitude as against being indentured. Many serfs were tenant farmers and under the control of the manor lord while they stayed to work the farm.

Then there were the many free men known as yeomen. Some worked the land and some worked other professions.

They were indentured servants that were usually connected to the land they worked and who bossed them about was the person who was the legal owner of the manor land.

Not quite, but almost.

"Indentured" was where you provided service for a set period of time. Normally to absolve a debt, or in exchange for training or a grant upon the completion.

But what they were was tied to the land itself, then up through a web of titles and allegiances. Normally they worked for a Knight or land granted man at arms, who worked for a Baron. Who worked for a Count. And that Count may work for a Duke-Earl, or may call directly under the Monarch.

However, here is where the difference between "Serf" and "Peasant" comes in. A Serf was indeed bound to the land, but did not own rights to it. These were the lower workers. Muckers of stalls, hewers of wood, unskilled laborers. Peasants were a step up, and had rights to home, hearth, and land.

But neither could be "bought, sold, or traded", they were not slaves. However, if they were bound by contract that contract could be sold. But once fulfilled, they were still released.

Franklins or "freemen" were the "free agents" of the era. Normally they had useful skills, but were not tradesmen under a guild. Hunters, foresters, animal husbandmen, and the equivalent of "master famer" were typical roles. They would swear an oath of loyalty, but were free to leave whenever they wanted.

However, by the same token if their services were not needed, they were dismissed.

This is something I actually started researching decades ago, as part of tracking human migrations. It was during the early middle ages that "last names" as we know started to be used. But not in connection to "family", but trade.

"Mark the Fletcher" would have a son who also became a Fletcher, so became known as John the Fletcher. And they just dropped the article and became "John Fletcher".

Fletcher, Thatcher, Cooper, Smith, Cook, Driver, Farmer, Wright, Franklin, Clark, Letterman, those all became "last names" because they were the jobs of the people who started to use them in that way. And to differentiate between people, as "Jacob the Cooper" might live next door to "Jacob the Letterman".

Terry Jones actually did a great series all about that era in Europe. And in it he busts a lot of myths. Most only know him as a comedian from Monty Python, but he actually had a degree from Oxford in Medieval History.

And was a respected scholar in both medieval history and medieval literature. And after retiring from comedy, spent most of his time writing books on the subject as well as documentaries about everything from numbers and life in the middle ages to following ancient maps and the Barbarian Invasions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QquhNTBfpdw

Those records, such as they exist, don't show the birth of children to young teens as alleged by Ernest.

Please provide links of many of those records showing the births of children to the serfs. I'd also like to see the records you reference as proof of the births of children to the poor free persons. I'd also like to see the other accounting records to show there were no other children in those communities you mention.

Almost certainly the diet of both slaves and free in the US at that time was superior to any in Europe - more available protein for example

Oh great, another that believes serfs and peasants ate gruel and garbage.

Actually, they ate quite a good diet. To the tune of almost 3,000 calories a day (2,900, as compared to today at around 2,000). 2-3 pounds a day in bread and grains, an amount to choke most people today. That would be like you or me eating 2-3 loaves of bread every day.

And also, lots of protein. The average peasant diet was rich in it in fact. Peas, garbanzo beans, lentils, as well as fish and small wild game (coney) was common. As well as poultry (wild and raised), eggs and other dairy (cheese, butter, milk), and meat such as beef, pork, and lamb.

Oh, and on top of that around a gallon of alcohol, primarily gruit (beer). Which often added things like rose hips, cinnamon, nutmeg, rosemary, mugwort, juniper, and other spices and herbs. There was a reason why it was frequently called "liquid bread", and would often be the noon meal all by itself.

Why people still believe that peasants were constantly starving, I have no idea. Their daily calorie intake was around 50% higher than that of most people today.

You keep making all these assumptions, and they are so wrong.

Not is not an assumption - it's fact that people what became the United States had better nutrition than those in Europe. One of the prime indicators was that they were much taller than those in Europe.

Correlation is not causation.

This is like a science fail 101. And you once again keep mixing up and trying to slam half a millennium all together into a single box and say it is all the same.

There are a great many things involved here. Including such other factors as the fact the US was a "melting pot" culture, and not the more homogenous one that is still common in Europe. That the US also had a population density about 1/10 of that of Europe. And less commerce, which means less exposure to infectious diseases.

I can just go on and on and on here, but the biggest problem you are going is that "A must mean B", when it was only a small factor out of a great many that had to do with that.

If any of those, population density and little contact with outsiders is probably the largest attributor, and not so much diet. Plus for the first several hundred years, the US was much more dependent on wild game than Europe was. Europe had already hunted out most of it's wild game a thousand years before, so relied more upon meats that were higher in fats like porn, cattle, and mutton.

Where as in the US wild game was still a major supply of meats. Wild deer, turkey, and other foul (wild ducks and geese as opposed to chickens). Give both to two different people even in the same quantity by weight and volume, you will get different results.

By the time of the US Revolution, most of the wild deer in Europe had already been hunted out and was regulated. In the US, it was a freaking pest. Farmers could not kill them fast enough, so there was little need to eat their cattle or other livestock.

Both in Europe and the Americas, .5-1 pound a day of meat was the norm. But in the US it was less likely to be salted, and instead smoked. And was a leaner meat because it was more often hunted and not raised. And they ate more, not because of anything other than there was more meat to eat.

Hell, in the time of the Revolution in most of New England, lobster was the food of the poor. For those in the cities like Boston that could not go out and hunt for themselves.

Which once again brings up other things, like salt intake.

There is no proof of your postulate in the provided link.

Not to mention once again trying to equate slaves to peasants. And also apparently that slaves were starving also.

I am not trying to equate slaves and peasants. And the slaves were not starving. They largely ate better than peasants in Europe.

They ate largely the same.

Holy hell, you really do seem to believe that the peasants lived in dirty squalor and were starved constantly.

And "economics" does not apply, because at this time there was no such thing. Most of Europe operated on a barter economy.

You keep making these claims which are just not true, and making silly comparisons that do not exist.

Hey, we are taller now than we were 100 years ago. And 100 years ago everybody wore hats, where as today almost nobody wears hats. So maybe it is really hats that kept people short.

This is what "Correlation is not causation" means. You assume that people 600 years ago were starving and ate garbage, and keep trying to find proof. Then try to prove it by trying to connect periods of time hundreds of years apart on different continents.

This calculates the age at first birth for slave women in the US and compares it with white women at the same time. They come up with 20 as the median.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with medieval or middle ages Europe which was a few hundred years earlier and totally different societies.

Are you saying that girls matured earlier in medieval times?

No, simply that the poorer people set up house and started families at younger ages than those in the USA in the 1800s.

Most serfs in Western Europe could not be bought, sold or traded - but in a sale of land they were an appurtenance included in the price. They could not leave the land without the permission of the new owner except by escape to a town. And this was an hereditary status.
Serfdom in the west had gradually diminished by the 1400s but it was just coming into full bloom in central and eastern Europe

But Serf and Peasant are not the same thing, but many people confuse the two.

Yes, both went with the land, but a Serf was in a form of bondage, where as a Peasant was not. One was working off a debt, the other exchanged labor for protection and a home.

But Serfdom was not diminished by the 14th century, it was as dead as a doornail other than those who ran up substantial debts as the concept of "Debtors Prison" had not evolved yet. Take on land as a Peasant and run up a debt to the lord, you may find yourself reduced to Serf until that debt was paid. It was on the way out by the 13th century, the Black Death was the final nail in the coffin.

And running to a town was of no real help, as towns in that era were also under lordship of somebody. Almost anybody entering a town that was not known by others was automatically suspected of being an outlaw unless they were tradesmen.

Oh, and in medieval Europe, "outlaw" did not mean criminal. It means they were "outside the law", and had no legal protections as a Serf or Peasant would have. All legal protections in that era were from the Lords themselves, and somebody without a lord could be killed without consequences. Not tied in some way to the system, that meant nobody would protect you or even try to find those that did you harm.

As to slaves- I should have clarified that I was referring to slavery in the US. C a regular records of births, deaths, marriages, illnesses and injuries were kept of those
As to serfs - in central and Eastern Europe they were property and could be bought, sold and traded. Rhe owners of the lands to which they were attached kept records of them.

No, they were not "property".

What they were however was tied to the land. When somebody was given a land grant, along with it came those who owned liege to that new lord.

Now here it may vary by era and country. But in most cases, both the new lord had to agree to take service, and the peasant had to agree to give it. If no agreement, generally they go up to the lord above them.

Hence, a typical Baronial grant may be along the line of "A manor house and 400 acres, 6 Knights and 25 Men at Arms. 25 Franklins, and 75 peasants". And for most of the era, they were free to not take service with the new lord. They just went back to the Count, and they would be assigned other duties (although most would not do that as it meant walking away from anything they could not carry on their back - and a Count could also simply dismiss them from service).

Bought and sold, not directly. Now if land was bought and sold, since the peasants were tied to the land they went with it. And "traded", yes. Much like sports players.

"I have a Master Fletcher who has 3 Apprentices becoming a Journeyman next year. And your Master Smith has an Apprentice that makes Journeyman next year. I will send you 2 Fletchers now, and when he finishes his apprenticeship send me the new Smith, and you will get the final Fletcher."

And yea, once again the Masters also had to agree, as did the new Journeyman. And if a lord tried to abuse their peasants, they would just leave.

Nothing stopped them from doing that, other than the fact they were leaving their house and job. All those rights worked both directions. While a peasant did not "own" their land, they had guaranteed right to work it. Walk away from a lord, you lost everything.

By the same token, provide bad lordship, and your peasants will leave. Then nobody will work your land, or provide the required services mandated by your own liege.

This is why in the mid-14th Century, the power was all in the hands of the peasants. The nobility did what they wanted, or suffered.

"Serf" is derived from the Latin word "servus."That means slave. Despite that, during much of the Middle Ages, some serfs were considered "Free" and some were considered "slave." The difference in actual situation didn't seem too great to me. The baron held the land, and the serf was bound to the land.

The serf had rights -- mostly he couldn't be put off the land. The judge of his rights, however, was the baron.

Yes, and no. This is where Peasants and Serfs are different.

Peasants had a right to the land they worked and lived in. They could even pass it to their heirs, and improve upon it generation after generation. They worked for themselves, but gave their lord a certain "rent", normally working their lands 2 months out of the year.

Yes, they were tied to the land, in the same way that a homeowner is. But instead of owing a bank they ow work to their landlord. If the lord changes, they remain in place. Naturally, because that is their home.

A Serf on the other hand was normally in a form of bondage, either for things done in the past (failure to repay a loan to the lord or another), or for things done at that time (say in exchange for learning a non-guild trade at the expense of the lord). Or they may simply be an unskilled worker, and swore allegiance in order to get a job, roof and food.

I already discussed the equivalent of "Middle Class", the tradesmen and freemen. They swear to their liege, but are free to leave at any time. Generally to take up service with another lord (say a Journeyman Smith leaving to become a Master Smith in a neighboring fiefdom).

The Serf was bound, but normally in personal debt to the lord. The Peasant was bound to the land, because it was their land. They could leave, but it would be like somebody just walking away from a house today.

Even today, property ownership in the UK is still under the feudal system. Technically, the Queen owns all of it, with "Possession" falling to who holds it at the time. It is almost never done, but technically the Monarch could take it back at any time (not unlike eminent domain laws in the US).

And yes, Peasants had a lot of rights, Serfs were mostly only given the right to fair treatment and fair living conditions. A Peasant could not be kicked off of their property without cause.

And remember, for the nobility, the saying stands that "shit rolls uphill". Piss off your liege, and you could lose your stewardship and be replaced. This is where "tied to the land" comes into play. Your Peasants stay, because they have years or generations invested in their homes. They then get a new liege, who takes up the responsibilities.

But "servus" could mean "slave" or "servant", depending on the context. A common phrase which originated in Latin but continued was "Servus humillimus, domine spectabilis", or "Your humble servant, my noble lord".

But a slave in Rome was obvious. They were the ones with the iron collar fixed around their neck, and a bronze tag affixed which stated their name and who owned them.

Servus is not unlike the word "Private". Depending on when and how it is used, it could mean confidential. Or the lowest rank in the Army and Marine Corps. Or you could be talking about your genitals.

Lifespan hasn't changed. If you did live to adulthood you would likely live a long time.

Lifespan and life expectancy are not the same thing. As I mentioned, it was certainly possible for you to live to be 100 years old four or five centuries ago.

Just not likely, because something was going to kill you. Your cultural status was also important to your life span. If you were wealthy or a scholar, you were much more likely to reach 70 or 80 years of age than if you were a simple peasant.

Versus today, where people living to be 100 years old is rather common, and we actually look at someone dying under the age of 60 as the exception rather than the rule.

The very old certainly seem to share the qualities of an active life, a healthy diet and relatively low wealth.

AJ

they'd eat a diet loaded in fat and cholesterol

I think the woke brigade have imposed an over-simplistic view of the roles of saturated fats and cholesterol. IMO both constitute a necessary part of a balanced diet.

AJ

What I don't understand here is why the argument?

Basically DB and Ernest are trying to see who can knock the most coins off the table. You know how it goes - you make an assertion, and back it up with something, and someone else comes along and tells you you're full of shit.

I know that child marriage can and does occur.

There was a case in the UK a few years back. It was claimed that a 2yo gypsy girl was married according to gypsy tradition. When the authorities investigated as a possible case of child abuse, the parents amended the claim to 'engaged' rather than 'married'.

AJ

Modern scholars don't make their name or improve their income by agreeing with their predecessors. It is more profitable to frame their output to suit their audience, editing history to make it conform to the views of those who care not for accuracy, but pander to the latest fads.

You left out the group of 'scholars's who trim what they say is acceptable sources because it doesn't match with the source they see as being the authority on the issue. Thus lots of original source material is ignored or actively discredited.

I left it out so as to give you a chance to contribute.

Yeah, I can't seem to forget about that large panel of experts who told Goddard rockets would never work in space because there was nothing for them to push against.

Scholars in the past said the same thing.

Because many di the same things too.

men are clueless.

nah, some of us have had a few clues mailed to us.

Certainly there are no documentary accounts to back your claim.

Only family Bibles and oral family records support the young marriages, as do the societal norms of those times. It's only in the last couple of centuries that 14 y/o was not seen as the start of being adult by the general communities - there's lots of records to prove that. Also, many of the early parish records only list the marriages of the richer people in the area, thus making them as poor records for the general society.

It's true that some people in the past lived as long as we do now. However, the evidence that the average life span has become longer over time:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

is one good accounting.

Many records also show that the average age of death has risen over the centuries.

Only family Bibles and oral family records support the young marriages, as do the societal norms of those times. It's only in the last couple of centuries that 14 y/o was not seen as the start of being adult by the general communities - there's lots of records to prove that.

They also remove those "marriages" from the era and try to force it into the current reference.

In that era, marriage was about many things, including land, lordship, and apprenticeship. So a "good catch" may get tied down in a "marriage", but other things had to happen before the actual ceremony and couple moving in together happened.

In the case of a serf-peasant, they needed to get the permission of the lord to set up their own household. Either a croft, farm, or house and job in a village before he could actually move in with his spouse.

If in an Apprenticeship, they have to reach at least Journeyman status in their trade. As an Apprentice, they were essentially almost a "slave" to their Master, and had to complete that phase before they could move on and set up their own business and home.

So you might see an Apprentice Cooper "married" to a girl at 14, but he lived with his Master and she lived with her parents until he completed his training, normally in his early 20's.

Starting married life in the early to mid-teens was very common for hundreds of years.

Actually, it was not. This is something that many people claim, but it misses many important facts.

The marriage at "young ages" was not a marriage as we know it, but a hand fasting, more like a pre-nup in common terms. There was no sex, each person lived with their families still. And a couple may be in this state for a decade, the marriage itself was generally not actually performed until the groom was given permission to create his own household.

The actual age for that was generally in the mid-20's. And parental approval was not needed, that should be obvious. Marriage was a "religious rite", and the Catholic Church has always been highly protective of it's "jurisdiction". The church recognized a marriage age of 14, and if a couple wanted to get married that was between them and God, and nobody else as far as the Church was concerned.

Not the right of any Earthly power to interfere, be it prince or parent.

This "old wives tale" has been floating around for a long time, and is just not true. What they are confusing is a binding contract of marriage and the ceremony involved with the couple actually moving in together and starting sexual relations.

The actual age for that was generally in the mid-20's. And parental approval was not needed, that should be obvious. Marriage was a "religious rite", and the Catholic Church has always been highly protective of it's "jurisdiction". The church recognized a marriage age of 14, and if a couple wanted to get married that was between them and God, and nobody else as far as the Church was concerned.

Parental approval was required if they wanted to live and work at the parental work or wanted any parental help in setting up house.

The Holy Catholic Church (as it was known then) had no interest in marriage services for the first several hundred years of its existence, and then they only concerned themselves with marriage services for the rich and powerful. It was only in later years that they extended that and the record keeping of such activities to the richer non-nobles and then general population.

Yes, a lot of the parish records did show the marriages of the rich and powerful as marrying in their 20s, but then according to some of the older parish registers only a small percentage of people who other records showed lived in the parish were ever married or had children. based solely on the early parish registers most communities didn't have enough people people marrying and having children to justify the existence of the churches.

Ayep, the stories have been floating around about a 1,000 or so years.

Parental approval was required if they wanted to live and work at the parental work or wanted any parental help in setting up house.

The Holy Catholic Church (as it was known then) had no interest in marriage services for the first several hundred years of its existence, and then they only concerned themselves with marriage services for the rich and powerful. It was only in later years that they extended that and the record keeping of such activities to the richer non-nobles and then general population.

Ayep, the stories have been floating around about a 1,000 or so years.

Wow, hard to know where to even begin.

Parental Work? Really? Like they live in their parent's basement?

"Holy Catholic Church"? That is a line from the Apostles Creed, and was not the common name for the church. And it was a term mostly connected with the Eastern Orthodox Church in that terminology, not the Roman Catholic faith.

No interest in marriage? The exact opposite in fact, as at that time the Catholic Church was involved in a "fight" in most of Europe over if Marriage was secular or religious. Goes right back to what I said before, it was a critical issue to them. And there were no records largely because the literacy rate was so damned low. During most of the Middle Ages around 10%. Not even priests commonly knew how to read. This is why "Chants" were so big, the passages recited were memorized. SO yea, no kidding there were few written records. The nobility had their own scribes, so only recorded their own information.

I have no idea where you are getting these ideas, but they are very wrong. The Catholic Church had been in a struggle with secular authorities for centuries over what each held power over. One of the leading things that caused the Protestant Reformation.

And yea, "first several hundred years". So you are literally talking about when they were a minority religion in Rome and Greece, and parts of the Levant. You are really trying to mix and match over 1,000 years obviously.

Parental Work? Really? Like they live in their parent's basement?

Most of the poor young marrieds lived with the male's parents either working the same land as his father did, or if they were servants the young couple also worked as servants in the same house. That was the usual system back then

Most of the poor young marrieds lived with the male's parents either working the same land as his father did, or if they were servants the young couple also worked as servants in the same house. That was the usual system back then

Which goes back to what I said before about getting permission from the lord to set up their own household.

But no, most did not live with the families. Your average peasant house was a single room, which even before the marriage of a child would typically have 5-6 people living in it. As I said already, they might be "legally married" prior to permission to start their own household, but they were not "husband and wife" yet.

And they typically did not work the same land, but land adjacent most times. Or adjacent to the bride's family. Many times that is what a bride's father wanted (especially if it was a younger son). If a couple had only daughters, getting a younger son to join their family was very desirable.

Servants were also generally two classes. The "Marrieds", normally those involved in management or food preparation had their own quarters. The others lived in common dorms. If there were quarters available a lord would give permission to marry. If there were not, then just tough luck, they find a way to get housing on their own, or leave the service of the lord.

A lot of what people think of the era are largely fables and outright lies. Like Droit du seigneur.

"Holy Catholic Church"? That is a line from the Apostles Creed, and was not the common name for the church. And it was a term mostly connected with the Eastern Orthodox Church in that terminology, not the Roman Catholic faith.

For hundreds of years the official title was the Holy Catholic Church, it wasn't common to call it the Roman Catholic Church until after the Protestant churches broke off.

The Christian Church didn't have a marriage service as such for almost the first 1,000 years of its existence. It was only after one of the Popes realised that by deciding which marriage was legitimate gave the Church power over who was entitled to inherit that the Church started getting involved with holding marriage services and recording them. Then they only recorded those for the rich and powerful for the a few centuries.

Not all sexual activity under the age of fourteen involves an adult. I would say it is safe to suggest that the majority of underage sexual contact is between peers.
...
The practice of sexual play between children has been around for a very long time - everything from games of 'show-me' to 'doctor' to the first fumbling attempts at sexual intercourse. No adults involved. Children are sexual creatures by nature.

Where is the sweet spot with regards to the age of the girl?

I know this one! It's half the protagonist's age plus seven.

AJ