Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

How did women avoid pregnancy before the pill?

239 replies

ericcartman · 14/09/2018 21:34

How come most families weren't the size of football teams back then? I mean bar any fertility issues or couples stopping having sex what else was there? I know condoms and abortions have been around for ages in one form or another but I doubt either was that common till the 20th century, especially when talking about married couples.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 19/09/2018 22:10

People do.

Whether they did in the past or not, I don't know, but I do know that references to it in the period I know about (medieval) are really pretty sparse. People definitely weren't horrifically unwashed in the way Monty Python would have you believe, but still, I do suspect it would have been a bit less appealing back then.

WitchesGlove · 20/09/2018 00:53

Yes, of course people have oral sex

I don’t understand why anal sex has been mentioned so many times (I thought that was rare) but oral hasn’t been

sanssherif · 20/09/2018 07:03

Anal sex is sometging men commonly push for once their wifes vagina is looser after giving birth.
Any tight hole will do. Just a bonus she wont get pregnant again.
Perhaps a blowjob is a better option as it doesnt affect continence (although the passion for putting the areas where excrement and urine leave the body in ones mouth is weird to say the least)

Gerard170 · 20/09/2018 07:33

Anal sex is sometging men commonly push for once their wifes vagina is looser after giving birth.
Any tight hole will do. Just a bonus she wont get pregnant again.

Commonly? I have three kids and my husband hasn’t. Can’t say I’ve ever heard about it before from friends and we do discuss our sex lives a bit. Where are you taking this “facts” from?

zzzzz · 20/09/2018 07:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BalloonSlayer · 20/09/2018 15:45

I was reading something recently about the Mutiny on the Bounty, and was a bit embarrassed about my naivety because I had always understood that the crew "fell in love with the beautiful Tahitians" and didn't want to leave. But what happened was that the sailors had some goods thing the Tahitians wanted, fairly valueless to the sailors but utterly prized by the Tahitians. So the Tahitian women basically offered themselves - and their daughters, Sad - to the crew and would do anything they wanted, hence them not wanting to leave because they were getting more sex than they had ever had in their entire lives. Getting to the point - the article said that Captain Bligh hadn't even known that oral sex was a thing until he saw it being practiced by the Tahitians, and was absolutely horrified. So it's not a given that everyone knew how to do these "alternative methods."

I also remember reading that Anne Boleyn kept Henry VIII sweet and on the boil by "practices she had learnt at the French court", which I would assume was oral*. Didn't it used to be called French? Henry found it all wildly exciting but after he got tired of her he found it disgusting, which is the way of things I suppose . . .

*would not have thought she would have risked anal in case Henry tried the "whoops, wrong hole" trick, in a nicely ironic reversal of our modern times.

Dorkdiary · 20/09/2018 16:12

I haven't read all the thread but have been doing a lot of family history. The truth is many did have huge families but they also lost a lot of babies due to disease too. My family were both very poor workhouse level and very comfortable depending which side of the tree but all had a lot of children ,sometimes 19 pregnancies and six that survived to adulthood.

It's not uncommon on my family tree to be one of thirteen.

sanssherif · 20/09/2018 16:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

zzzzz · 20/09/2018 16:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sanssherif · 20/09/2018 17:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

zzzzz · 20/09/2018 17:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sanssherif · 20/09/2018 17:45

Called real life not romantic stupidity

zzzzz · 20/09/2018 17:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

passwordfailure · 20/09/2018 18:00

Let us not forget the hand shandy too.

Coyoacan · 20/09/2018 19:09

Weren't people's sexual inclinations somewhat cted by the risk of STDs?

The sexual revolution was not just about the pill, but also about effective antibiotics being available for the treatments of syphilis and gonorrhea.

AvoidingDM · 20/09/2018 19:51

I don't think men affairs with other women would be the answer. Peoples would have lived in small communites no anonymity.
Nor do i think women would allow themselves to be alone with married men. Much more stigma attached to being a single mum. Not to mention in exactly the same way as some communties are today unmarried girls and women would not have been given "alone" time with boys or men.

sanssherif · 20/09/2018 23:01

zzzz I don't know why you have reported me, nor do I know why I've been deleted. I didn't say anything other than what genuinely happens. How odd that you are so easily offended.

TomPinch · 21/09/2018 07:00

A reason not being given much attention (at least as far as the UK went) was that people had an awful lot less sex.

There are various, really quite obvious reasons for this, such as:

  1. Poor living conditions. If you lived during the Industrial Revolution you were probably sharing a room with 3 or 4 other people; even more if you were in the slums, so you would have no privacy. You might be sleeping on the floor, and your house might be inadequately heated. Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution by E Royston Pike is a very interesting (and sobering) collection of contemporary descriptions of UK towns in the nineteenth century.

If you were too poor to support yourself, you entered the workhouse, where the sexes were segregated.

  1. Poor health. Compared to now, people had poorer quality food and less of it, and therefore, I assumes, less libido. Also people would have simply endured various health conditions easily cured now. I doubt if you suffered from kidney disease or lumbago that sex would be on your mind much.
  1. Fear of pregnancy. Apart from the obvious health risks, pregnancy outside marriage was a disaster for women.
  1. Disapproval of sexuality. There is an idea that sexuality can't be contained, and therefore people in the past didn't contain it. Actually, I think they did. Until recent times, celibacy was quite normal - not just in Catholic countries - in fact it was the expected state if you were not married. Controlling your sexual appetites was considered healthy, in the same way that we consider moderating or eliminating alcohol or other various things healthy. Until very recent times, there was lots of peer pressure away from sex and none towards it.

Diarmaid Ferriter has done some very interesting research into sexuality in Ireland and how it was controlled. Ireland's probably an extreme example, because it was anything but a permissive society until very recent times, but what's really striking is how references to any any discussion of sex was basically eliminated from public space: sex was an entirely private thing that belonged to marriage only.

I have never noticed is alternatives to vaginal intercourse being discussed. I read one account of some kirk session in Scotland that dealt with a local man who "knew" a woman "in the forbidden way". I assume this means anal, and clearly its description as "the forbidden way" meant it was a known thing. Masturbation, however, was always frowned upon and oral doesn't turn up in anything I've read as far as I remember. I'm not surprised: people's private parts must have stunk to high heaven. I suspect that insofar that alternatives to PIV were going on, it was probably anal but nothing else.

There is literature suggesting some promiscuity, e.g. Harris' List of Covent Garden Ladies, and the frightful Secret History, but in general it concerns men who were rich enough to pay for these things and therefore aren't representative.

zzzzz · 21/09/2018 07:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Roomba · 21/09/2018 07:33

when oranges were freely available in this country they were halved and some of the flesh scraped out and used as a dutch cap

Bloody hell - I have a mild reaction to oranges, they make my skin sting and swell a bit if I peel them and make my mouth sore if I eat them. I'm wincing and crossing my legs reading that!

Gerard170 · 21/09/2018 09:21

when oranges were freely available in this country they were halved and some of the flesh scraped out and used as a dutch cap

You’d need an unusually large cervix for that to work surely. It would get pushed to the back and pulped into mush surely.

TheHollowLeggedGoat · 21/09/2018 09:41

How come most families weren't the size of football teams back then?

They were!

I do some family history and can tell you that if there's an apparent gap of more that 2 years between children, it's very likely that a child died. Most fertile couples reproduced every couple of years from the time of marriage until mid-40s, so ten children wasn't unusual, even if not all of them survived. A two year gap would account for a nine month pregnancy and then a year or more of breastfeeding which was the norm in those days as there was no alternative.
By the 1930s and 1940s limited birth control was more readily available in the form of rubber condoms (reusable, my granny told me!) and caps.
It wasn't until the pill arrived in the 1960s that women were liberated from the threat of sex = pregnancy.

OutPinked · 21/09/2018 10:54

Most people did have large families. My DGM was one of nine, DGF one of ten...

TomPinch · 21/09/2018 10:56

zzzzz

can't speak for India in 3AD, but over in the West in more recent times, ignorance abounded.

When at law school, I was told of a case in Victorian England where a music teacher had sex with his female student on the basis that was an exercise to help her vocal chords. He was convicted of rape on the basis that the student hadn't the first clue what she had agreed to do, and therefore her consent wasn't valid at law.

A lot of people hadn't the first clue about what sex involved.

zzzzz · 21/09/2018 11:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread