>>21466872The misconception is thus. Age of consent as understood back then is not thenage of consent as understood today. Age of consent back then was effectively Age of betrothal to eventual marriage. Today's understanding is Age of sexual consent.
Understand that prior to feminism, females had very limited agency unless exceptional circumstances permitted. By and large, for 99% of girls and women, they remained the de facto property of the male head of household, whether that was the father, husband, or substituting male patriarch. As such, the age of consent then was not understood as a girl agedn10ncan agree herself to have sex with an older man, but rather, it was more akin to the prevailing male figure in their lives who 'owned' them for lack of a better term, consented to a another male they approved of and trusted to betroth, and eventually marry, upon which the marriage was consummated, at a more reasonable and expected age of 15-18.
Otherwise, if this was path was not chosen, women could semi-freely choose a suitor of her own preference, but would still ultimately require the blessing of the father, lest scandal and shame and disownment fall upon the family name, which would put the female in a most precarious situation.
To apply modern understanding age of consent to past understanding is to necessarily imply that females had the sole agency to choose her sexual partner without regards to her position in the family and in society, which was that of soft-property (owned, but not in the same way as you own land, or assets. Owned with the understanding of living beings not to be used and abused for the betterment of social stability and function. Those who did truly abuse were shamed and ostracized, if not having communal justice taken out on them).
