Quote:
Originally Posted by Piper_
Hi, Crich. 
I agree with one of your points, but disagree with the relevance of the other.
The point that there were no laws against pedophilia until the 19th century is mostly true, but I always wonder why people use it in their arguments against people voicing their objections to it. Isn't it like responding to an outcry against slavery by pointing out that it was legal until the late 19th century? |
It isn't an argument. Laws are by their very nature reactive. In the mid 19th century lawmakers were focused on problems deemed more important, women's suffrage, child labor, establishing functional democracies (outside US).
That doesn't imply that it wasn't a problem before, nor that it wasn't even considered a problem. Someone knowledgeable about judicial history can probably explain it better, but most likely what happened was that citizens dealt with these matters outside the law, hence lawmakers came to the conclusion that laws were required in this field and thus implemented them. Thus, a reaction to the lawlessness in dealing with solutions to a problem.