What the lusty lass lost over the centuries
Who has more fun: 21st century blondes or 17th century blondes? Clearly the answer is brunettes. Regardless, let's compare the eras a bit.
In the 1600s, women were considered to be naturally lusty, and a healthy woman required a certain amount of sex to be healthy. And that works out well, if all women are to be generalized as being a certain level of slutty. In the 21st century there are a lot of diverse sexual practices, but many of them elicit a disapproving response and are kept to a taboo status.
The scorn of your 17th-century neighbor was hard to induce and fairly easy to escape: Premarital cuddling up to third base was relatively acceptable and commonplace, and premarital intercourse was excusable provided there was a spoken agreement of a marriage. Clearly this "promise" nonsense isn't a prerequisite for anything anymore, and the limits of sexual encounters are a strictly individual matter.
Another perk is that it was believed that mutual pleasure was necessary for conception. Fifteen seconds and passing out wasn't acceptable back then, but 400 years later we just shrug and reach for a vibrator. Seems like those 17th-century women had equality on their side - sure, there wasn't as much variety in sexual positions and the occupations and social roles were pretty shabby, but at least there was a standard of sexual prowess men had to uphold.
If a 17th-century man didn't want to be mocked at the tavern, he had to do a decent job with the weaver's daughter. If a 21st-century man doesn't want to be mocked at the bar, all he has to do is get off. What we need here is a stronger sense of community watch - voyeurism, and lots of it.
It was believed that conception was a result of mutual contribution of "seed," which could only be released when both partners were feeling sexual pleasure. The baby's gender was also more egalitarian in determination: Genetics tell us that it's all the man's fault, but in the 17th century, whoever's "seed" was stronger determined the baby's gender. However, there were two downsides to this view of mutual sexual pleasure as essential.
In the 1600s, women were considered to be naturally lusty, and a healthy woman required a certain amount of sex to be healthy. And that works out well, if all women are to be generalized as being a certain level of slutty. In the 21st century there are a lot of diverse sexual practices, but many of them elicit a disapproving response and are kept to a taboo status.
The scorn of your 17th-century neighbor was hard to induce and fairly easy to escape: Premarital cuddling up to third base was relatively acceptable and commonplace, and premarital intercourse was excusable provided there was a spoken agreement of a marriage. Clearly this "promise" nonsense isn't a prerequisite for anything anymore, and the limits of sexual encounters are a strictly individual matter.
Another perk is that it was believed that mutual pleasure was necessary for conception. Fifteen seconds and passing out wasn't acceptable back then, but 400 years later we just shrug and reach for a vibrator. Seems like those 17th-century women had equality on their side - sure, there wasn't as much variety in sexual positions and the occupations and social roles were pretty shabby, but at least there was a standard of sexual prowess men had to uphold.
If a 17th-century man didn't want to be mocked at the tavern, he had to do a decent job with the weaver's daughter. If a 21st-century man doesn't want to be mocked at the bar, all he has to do is get off. What we need here is a stronger sense of community watch - voyeurism, and lots of it.
It was believed that conception was a result of mutual contribution of "seed," which could only be released when both partners were feeling sexual pleasure. The baby's gender was also more egalitarian in determination: Genetics tell us that it's all the man's fault, but in the 17th century, whoever's "seed" was stronger determined the baby's gender. However, there were two downsides to this view of mutual sexual pleasure as essential.
Be the first to comment on this story