To think women had less choice about non consensual sex

[Leah2005]

Had a discussion with my DH last night starting with the fact that both our DGM's had more than 10 children each. I believe that women were less able to say no to their DH and frequently lay back and thought of England. That women were treated as chattel and with no other support, had to do as they were told. I'm not clear in my head when this started to change - I feel like the 1950's. Am I wrong? My DH was really upset by the conversation - I'm not sure if because I hold that belief or because it could have happened. I am aware that some women are still in this situation. Surely women with 10 kids in cramped housing conditions didn't think oooh I can't wait to have some sex? Or did they?

The idea that women have the right to say no, and the right to their own bodies is still poorly understood within relationships by some women as much as some men.

It must be remembered that untold numbers of women were dying in childbirth and pregnancy. Even within marriage pregnancy was not just about having "another mouth to feed", a woman stood a very high risk of "screaming her way in unrelenting agony to God" as my Grandmother described it, having witnessed a woman dying in childbirth.

My Aunt had 10 live children and lost 5 pregnancies. She was basically pregnant or breastfeeding for more than 10 years of her life. Her kids have 20 years between the youngest and the oldest.

I was talking to my Mum about it and she recalled a conversation between her and her sister about contraception after she almost died after a miscarriage that went amok. My aunt said "oh god no I couldn't talk to my DH about something like that. You don't talk about things like that".

This was in the 70s btw so not all that long ago.

I'm a bit confused by your confusion as to why your DH was upset. You've essentially told him you think his grandfather was raping his grandmother and that there is no other possible explanation for having that many kids (such as lack of access to contraception/ abortion). Maybe you're OK with this tought/detached from it and viewing it as merely an academic discussion, but it has arisen directly from discussing your own families. I think you need to be a bit more sensitive with the implications of what you're saying (and maybe be a bit less absolute, I.e. implying that rape was the only factor that led women to having more children, when that might be the case for some but not others). In that respect, YABU

Women couldn't vote and when they got married their assets then belonged to their husbands.

@Elleherd

Large families definitely weren’t common in the 50s and 60s and were also somewhat frowned upon.

Clearly that depends on place and class, and frowned upon by who? Those who thought their opinions on such things mattered?
Because there were tons of big families already in existence when I was born, and many more were breeding like rabbits despite desperate housing situations, especially Catholics, and specific races.

In the 60's child benefit was only paid on every second child, specifically to encourage replacing the lost war generation. If child no.2, 4, 6, 8 died, it didn't make financial sense to those on a low income, to not replace it.

You got child benefit for all the children apart from the eldest. I'm one of 5, my mum got it for the 4 ypungest.

Margaueritte2000 That's interesting. I'm one of many but I was a child and am going off what was bandied about at the time as to why things were done the way they where, and tbh I've never questioned it. (There was also much fear around ideas from the disbanded NAB.)

I'm sorry it's a DM link, but for random sized families where I grew up, it reflects what was normal size wise range to me.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4015704/The-slum-children-Swinging-Sixties-grew-Dickensian-poverty-mere-50-years-ago-stories-haunt-affluent-modern-Britain.html

Clearly that depends on place and class, and frowned upon by who?

Usually by those who had smaller families of 1-3 children, 4 at most.

Because there were tons of big families already in existence when I was born, and many more were breeding like rabbits despite desperate housing situations, especially Catholics, and specific races.

I think you’ve kind of answered your own question - those doing the frowning would have shown attitudes like this, eg ‘breeding like rabbits’ rather than, ‘how lovely to have a large family.’

In the 60's child benefit was only paid on every second child, specifically to encourage replacing the lost war generation. If child no.2, 4, 6, 8 died, it didn't make financial sense to those on a low income, to not replace it.

No, child benefit (family allowance) was paid for the second child because there was child tax allowance for the first. It was a minimal amount so no real incentive to have children.

Oh, I misread that; child benefit was indeed paid for second and all subsequent children (not the first for reason stated above).

Women couldn't vote and when they got married their assets then belonged to their husbands.

Yeah but I don’t think that is the period OP is talking about.

I think you’ve kind of answered your own question - those doing the frowning would have shown attitudes like this, eg ‘breeding like rabbits’ rather than, ‘how lovely to have a large family.’

I think the thing is we didn't think there was much wrong with rabbits, they had their place, though it's true I have no memory of anyone saying 'how lovely' just a lot of talk for Catholics about 'God's will' and that 'God would provide,' but I never got the idea that counted when it came to the rest of us.

The Married Women’s Property Act, giving women the right to keep their own earnings, was passed in 1870! So definitely before the period you are all discussing here.
Abortion was still illegal in Britain until 1967, and I had to pay for private prescriptions for the contraceptive pill in the early 70’s, as it was not available on the NHS.

Also I doubt most would have been dealing with 'tax allowances' unless there was steady work (not that common in my childhood) and an employer doing it for them.

Also I doubt most would have been dealing with 'tax allowances' unless there was steady work (not that common in my childhood) and an employer doing it for them.

Yes, the employer would do it as part of PAYE. You would have to be above the tax threshold to benefit but a man in full time work would normally have been earning enough.

I think another factor is people were getting married a lot younger back then. If you got married at 20-23 there were a lot of childbearing years ahead of you and without contraception, it makes sense more babies.

I had to pay for private prescriptions for the contraceptive pill in the early 70’s, as it was not available on the NHS.

I suppose I did too but don’t think it was hugely expensive - probably less in real terms than the current English prescription charge. You couldn’t get free condoms either - had to be bought from the chemist, though I guess most people still pay for them still today!

TBH there weren't that many permanent men around when I was a child, let alone in full time work. Hence as I grew up, the idea that one who would 'put a ring on it' held much higher value in everyone's eyes than they were worth!

I think another factor is people were getting married a lot younger back then. If you got married at 20-23 there were a lot of childbearing years ahead of you and without contraception, it makes sense more babies.

Teenage marriage was very common in the early 1960s (about 50% of girls married before 20) and yet the 2 child family was very much the norm.

@ActonSquirrel

The pill was introduced on the NHS in 1961.

I think that has a lot more to do with it. You can't imagine that a woman has a sex drive and wants to sleep with her husband?? The side effects if that without the pill or contraceptives in the 1950s were more children.

Not necessarily husbands forcing themselves on unwilling women.

This.

It’s a bit presumptions to assume married women at that time didn’t have similar libidos to lots of women today.

My granny one side was one of 13 kids, nanny the other side one of 15. They all lived in smallish houses together bunking in together.

None of this rubbish you see on here about each child must have their own room and ensuite.

So even with having lots of kids it was still deemed okay if you lived in a two up two down with outhouse.

My nan told me that her dad was 'always on' her mum, and that my great nan had several miscarriages as well as three children, of which my nan was the middle child.

My nan made it very much sound like it wasn't necessarily wanted but tolerated as part of marriage.

My grandmother had 12 children and two miscarriages in 50s and 60s. She never much talked about sex because she thought it was a private matter between a husband and wife. However, I do know (because she told me) that she loved having babies and she only stopped because she couldn't have any more due to "the change" (her words).

If I were your DH I'd be really offended that you thought my grandfather a rapist and my grandmother a victim.

Even if you were an orgasmic type, it wouldn’t take too many pregnancies and babies to get turned off as you clue in sex=babies. But then again I’m sure they clued in on some creative ways.
Including infanticide, family hx of a female relative having 20, and refusing to feed them or let anyone else feed them.

I think to modern women, the thought of having sex with all the very real risks of another pregnancy when living in cramped conditions with multiple DC(As in Call The Midwife)would be abhorrent .However then it was seem as normal! My own GGM had 9 DC and DGM said they were sent out to play, so there would be some privacy for her DP! I think (hope) women were not raped as such ,but may have been willing for some time alone with DP .However with all these children and no labour saving devices they must have been exhausted!