|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 4, 2016 0:52:09 GMT -5
The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there. Not really a question of "the past" though, is it? Sixteen is still the legal age of consent, and indeed the age at which one can marry, in the UK, as you are no doubt well aware. And people still do marry at sixteen. Not as often as they used to, admittedly, but it's by no means rare. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 4, 2016 0:57:27 GMT -5
But then again, I do listen to a lot of old music, read a lot books about history and collect a lot of old comics.  That's me too. I always joke I was born too late, as my favorite television, music, and films are all from early to mid 20th century, but somehow the marrying 16 year old bits just completely took me by surprise. I know Charlie Chaplin did it (and worse), but I just didn't realize it was common place in an industrialized society. It's still commonplace in many societies, though in a lot of places (including England, though not Scotland) parental consent is required for under 18s to marry. I don't really see the problem, to be honest. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,207 
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 4, 2016 8:02:42 GMT -5
The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there. Not really a question of "the past" though, is it? Sixteen is still the legal age of consent, and indeed the age at which one can marry, in the UK, as you are no doubt well aware. And people still do marry at sixteen. Not as often as they used to, admittedly, but it's by no means rare. Hmmm...this is a tricky one to gage because obviously the people in one's social circle, one's class and one's peer group will tend to have an effect on what you see happening around you regarding marriage. Obviously some people do still get married at 16, but I don't know anyone born since the '70s who has married that young. Whereas I can think of two women from my parent's generation who were married at 16. The Office for National Statistics here in the UK says that the biggest group of people getting married are aged 25 - 30, which sounds about right to me. I think marrying at 16 really is quite unusual these days, and could justifiably be described as "rare", although obviously it does still happen. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 4, 2016 8:46:33 GMT -5
Not really a question of "the past" though, is it? Sixteen is still the legal age of consent, and indeed the age at which one can marry, in the UK, as you are no doubt well aware. And people still do marry at sixteen. Not as often as they used to, admittedly, but it's by no means rare. Hmmm...this is a tricky one to gage because obviously the people in one's social circle, one's class and one's peer group will tend to have an effect on what you see happening around you regarding marriage. Obviously some people do still get married at 16, but I don't know anyone born since the '70s who has married that young. Whereas I can think of two women from my parent's generation who were married at 16. The Office for National Statistics here in the UK says that the biggest group of people getting married are aged 25 - 30, which sounds about right to me. I think marrying at 16 really is quite unusual these days, and could justifiably be described as "rare", although obviously it does still happen. Well, I know-or rather, knew-at least one person I was at school with who was at least engaged at sixteen, and married with a kid when I ran into him a year or so later (he left school at sixteen, I left at seventeen and ran into him at the Job Centre, as I recall). Of course, that was almost thirty years ago. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 4, 2016 11:47:22 GMT -5
That's me too. I always joke I was born too late, as my favorite television, music, and films are all from early to mid 20th century, but somehow the marrying 16 year old bits just completely took me by surprise. I know Charlie Chaplin did it (and worse), but I just didn't realize it was common place in an industrialized society. It's still commonplace in many societies, though in a lot of places (including England, though not Scotland) parental consent is required for under 18s to marry. I don't really see the problem, to be honest. I think it's exceptionally rare for a sixteen year old to be mature enough to have a really long-term perspective on life enough to make that kind of commitment. You have to have a sense of who you are, who you want to be, where you are headed, and the kind of person that you want along with you for the ride. I got married at 20, and I think even that was young. But my wife and I wanted the same things and shared the same values, so we felt ready to handle whatever life threw at us together. I couldn't have made that same decision at sixteen. I knew nothing about who I was or what I wanted, and I think I was mature for my age. Now, in an agrarian society where there are no options and it doesn't really matter what you want out of life, then marrying at sixteen would make sense. But the more options available to you in life, the longer it takes to know who you are and what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 4, 2016 12:08:32 GMT -5
It's still commonplace in many societies, though in a lot of places (including England, though not Scotland) parental consent is required for under 18s to marry. I don't really see the problem, to be honest. I think it's exceptionally rare for a sixteen year old to be mature enough to have a really long-term perspective on life enough to make that kind of commitment. You have to have a sense of who you are, who you want to be, where you are headed, and the kind of person that you want along with you for the ride. I got married at 20, and I think even that was young. But my wife and I wanted the same things and shared the same values, so we felt ready to handle whatever life threw at us together. I couldn't have made that same decision at sixteen. I knew nothing about who I was or what I wanted, and I think I was mature for my age. Now, in an agrarian society where there are no options and it doesn't really matter what you want out of life, then marrying at sixteen would make sense. But the more options available to you in life, the longer it takes to know who you are and what you want. Some people are very mature at sixteen, or even younger. Others still act like teenagers when they're in their late twenties. I think it comes very much down to upbringing and personal circumstances. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 4, 2016 19:16:36 GMT -5
I think it's exceptionally rare for a sixteen year old to be mature enough to have a really long-term perspective on life enough to make that kind of commitment. You have to have a sense of who you are, who you want to be, where you are headed, and the kind of person that you want along with you for the ride. I got married at 20, and I think even that was young. But my wife and I wanted the same things and shared the same values, so we felt ready to handle whatever life threw at us together. I couldn't have made that same decision at sixteen. I knew nothing about who I was or what I wanted, and I think I was mature for my age. Now, in an agrarian society where there are no options and it doesn't really matter what you want out of life, then marrying at sixteen would make sense. But the more options available to you in life, the longer it takes to know who you are and what you want. Some people are very mature at sixteen, or even younger. Others still act like teenagers when they're in their late twenties. I think it comes very much down to upbringing and personal circumstances. I teach sixteen year olds, and I can say that even the most mature ones I have known have not been ready to make such major life decisions, nor do they have a true sense of their adult identities yet. Again, I suspect a large part of it comes down to how many options are available to you. If you have no options, it's a lot easier to decide where you're going in life, what kind of adult you'll be, and who you want along with you for the ride. That's seldom the case in non-agrarian Western society. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 5, 2016 2:20:29 GMT -5
Some people are very mature at sixteen, or even younger. Others still act like teenagers when they're in their late twenties. I think it comes very much down to upbringing and personal circumstances. I teach sixteen year olds, and I can say that even the most mature ones I have known have not been ready to make such major life decisions, nor do they have a true sense of their adult identities yet. Again, I suspect a large part of it comes down to how many options are available to you. If you have no options, it's a lot easier to decide where you're going in life, what kind of adult you'll be, and who you want along with you for the ride. That's seldom the case in non-agrarian Western society. "If you have no options"? Well, I guess that might well explain quite a few early marriages of working class teens in Britain, particularly back in the eighties. The only option many of them saw for themselves back then was a life on the dole queue... Even today, we have young girls with no prospects getting themselves pregnant in expectation of eighteen years income through child benefits. Only thing that's really changed is that many of them no longer feel the need to be married. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 5, 2016 2:47:36 GMT -5
Is Nick Fury invoived with these child-brides? What issue did that happen? Shax needs to get on with the next review
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 5, 2016 3:19:09 GMT -5
Is Nick Fury invoived with these child-brides? What issue did that happen? Shax needs to get on with the next review You have obviously never seen the original story intended for Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD #16, a heartrending epic by Stan Lee entitled "Lo, the Shotgun Wedding Beckons", which was the real reason Fury went underground for awhile... (though a sixteen year old is hardly a child bride) |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 5, 2016 3:30:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 5, 2016 4:55:17 GMT -5
It's not "my prediliction", and frankly I resent that remark, and its 'tone'. As I said earlier, UK law says 16 is the age at which a British citizen can marry. The United Nations have no say in the matter. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 11, 2016 13:44:22 GMT -5
Tales of Suspense #78  "THEM!" writer: Stan Lee pencils: Jack Kirby inks: Frank Giacoia letters: Artie Simek grade: A- It's clear that Stan and Jack were not done with Nick Fury yet. While they were no longer working on Strange Tales, they used this Captain America story to accomplish two major things they'd clearly been itching to do for a while now -- firmly establish Nick Fury and his reputation in the Marvel superhero universe, and finally introduce the oft-alluded to threat of T.H.E.M. In regard to the first point, when the Marvel superhero universe first began to take off, Stan and Jack were quick to find a way of having Nick Fury fight alongside a costumed superhero in the pages of Sgt. Fury #13. Unfortunately, this story was met with a lot of criticism in the letter column because fans felt Sgt. Fury belonged in a different world/genre than that of the emerging Marvel superheroes. Lee and Kirby were presumably still listening to that concern when the Agent of S.H.E.I.L.D. feature debuted in Strange Tales. Tony Stark was a regular supporting character, but he was never allowed to suit up on those pages, no matter how dire the threat he was placed in. Well, Lee and Kirby seemed to finally find a way around this fan objection by having Fury and Cap reunite in the present day Marvel Universe for the first time in some other comic book. Fans looking to read about Captain America in Tales of Suspense would surely have no objection to his teaming up with a resourceful colonel, as this was not a disruption of his feature's genre and tone. Thus, Stan really trumps up their reunion and holds nothing back, first acknowledging their past history together:  and then really amping up the bond between them in revealing that, when Cap woke up in the present day, his first desire was to join S.H.I.E.L.D. -- NOT the Avengers:  And, by the close, Lee and Kirby leave the door open for more team-ups between the two:  I wonder. If it hadn't been for this story, would Fury or even S.H.E.I.L.D. have a role in the present day Marvel Universe? Once Strange Tales ended, the entire concept could have fallen into obscurity as easily as The Ringo Kid. It really took Lee and Kirby to sell us on the idea that Fury belonged beside the costumed heroes and could even hold his own beside them, as well as the idea that S.H.E.I.L.D. could be an agency of import even to The Avengers. As mentioned earlier, the other significant aspect of this issue is the first introduction of T.H.E.M. after several months of their name having been dropped.  It honestly didn't occur to me until reading this issue that T.H.E.M. is the original incarnation of A.I.M.. This is, then, A.I.M.'s first appearance. We also learn a little bit about the shadowy agency for the first time:  More generally, it's just a heck of a lot of fun to see Lee and Kirby working with Fury and S.H.E.I.L.D. again. I was never a fan of Kirby's work on Sgt. Fury, but his crazy outlandish sci-fi gadgetry and concepts were always half the fun of the Strange Tales stories, so it's great fun to see them popping up here again:   Plot synopsis:
Nick Fury goes to Avengers' mansion to ask if they have any information on T.H.E.M. Only Captain America is there, and Fury is quickly followed by an artificial being that can change its chemical composition at will. After tremendous struggle, Fury is able to down it with a knock-out pellet, causing it to self-destruct. Captain America and Fury reminisce, Cap confesses his initial desire to work for SHIELD after being thawed, and Fury gives him a Priority A-1 communicator device. |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Apr 11, 2016 14:49:28 GMT -5
Good to see Nick back in business. I'm looking forward to you trying to grit your way through the Roy Thomas era on Sgt. Fury  A couple of notes. The Cap appearance in Sgt. Fury #13 came after he had returned in Avengers #4; Cap's Silver Age rebirth in Avengers #4 came out the same month as Sgt. Fury #6. Also, Cap's attempt to join SHIELD was an ongoing subplot in the pages of Avengers for several months prior to this issue. He wrote a letter to Nick essentially professing his undying love, but the letter got sidetracked or something. I forget the details, but I believe it happened around the time the team temporarily disbanded in #21-22; everyone went their own way, and for Cap, that was an attempt to join SHIELD. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,872
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 11, 2016 14:58:20 GMT -5
A couple of notes. The Cap appearance in Sgt. Fury #13 came after he had returned in Avengers #4; Cap's Silver Age rebirth in Avengers #4 came out the same month as Sgt. Fury #6. Ooh, my bad. Thanks for this. Fascinating. Who was the writer? |
|
