Women have long had methods of abortion via plants.
I suspect they are less effective or less safe than those offered by modern medicine.
condoms made from animal parts
I doubt the convenience or effectiveness was the same. Plus, I did say I was referrin to a society without birth control.
nonpenetratice sex are a thing
Yes, and I expect many women would be content with only that. But I’ve never had a partner who was content only or even mainly with that. They want the dick. So, I don’t believe that would work well in avoidsing births for a lot of women.
Women have lesbian sex
Of course. But that’s not a solution for the wide majority of women who are not into women.
Sexual pleasure and arousal isn’t per se related to procreation
I never said it was.
No, women do not have sex if they think it or pregnancy will kill them.
Right, but we are talking about taking those in the past, not the present. So the women at the time were comparing how safe these abortifacients are versus pregnancy and childbirth and possible forced proximity to the father.
We’ve had condoms a long time. No, they were not as efficient.
No offense, but you probably attract and demand a certain kind of sex. Sex is extremely varied. A lot of women like dick, but I know of many women who like oral. Either way, whatever some women enjoy with sex doesn’t mean they would engage in that if it risked their life and they could just be fingered or use a dildo (also a lot of ancient dildos). A lot of women are perfectly satisfied masturbating and not having a partner at all. The reason we invented modern methods is because people have been demanding its development.
And pulling out or finishing with oral after penetrative sex can be considered akin to birth control, while also not perfect, it’s better than nothing especially in ancient times.
So when is this hypothetical society except in Christian nirvana sexual fantasy?
You’ve had sex with women in modern times with access to birth control, so lucky you, you get to have more penetrative sex. If it was going to kill her, like in ancient times, you’d probably both do other stuff if you cared about her. Or masturbate. People aren’t entitled to sex.
The point is that lesbian sex is often nonpenetrative and those women in lesbian relationships report higher sexual satisfaction and more orgasms.
Back then, women would’ve known someone (friend, cousin, sister, aunt) who died in childbirth and would have taken it seriously as a risk. Just like we take driving seriously today because it carries a risk of harm, so we wear seatbelts and have airbags. We decided these were a good idea due to the history of carriages and cars, and gave up some freedom and comfort so we could increase health outcomes. Like with modern birth control.
I… agree with you. I don’t know how to say it, but to me all your arguments bring support. But not in absolute terms.
What I mean is that I recognized from the start that it would have an effect. But I can’t imagine penetrative sex would be entirely gone. And you referred to pull out, or finishing with non-penetrative sex. That also carries risk of pregnancy. Even pre-sejaculate can lead to pregnancy.
Cars are actually a great example of people not making the wisest choices. In cities, we have the option of building denser, building infrastructure for bikes, and having really convenient and frequent public transit for safer, greener, and healthier cities. Instead, by and large, people prefer sparser cities, with plenty of space to park their car, and streets for their car, not for bikes. They choose the perceived confort and convenience of cars over the possibility of avoiding killing pedestrians, which happens all the time, polluting people around with heavy metals, polluting the atmosphere with green house gas, and causing themselves and their family to have more chance of getting heart problems and other health problems from being inactive.
Women can know of other women dying from childbirth, but think it can’t possibly happen to them. Or let themselves be carried by passion. Or think that if their partner pull early, nothing will happen. Or they will be better at it, this time, than before when they got pregnant. Or invite their partner to cum over their body, thinking it won’t land on their vulva, or it’s no big deal if it happens. Or a ton of other justifications / beliefs leading to not avoiding risks completely.
I’m too sleepy to find the correct words now to continue on this train of thought, but I think you get what I mean. My position is that fear of maternal death would have an effect in such a society, but not enough to completely reduce the number of children down to only those who were fully wanted and planned for. But your arguments did make me reconsider the rate of that effect.
I suspect they are less effective or less safe than those offered by modern medicine.
I doubt the convenience or effectiveness was the same. Plus, I did say I was referrin to a society without birth control.
Yes, and I expect many women would be content with only that. But I’ve never had a partner who was content only or even mainly with that. They want the dick. So, I don’t believe that would work well in avoidsing births for a lot of women.
Of course. But that’s not a solution for the wide majority of women who are not into women.
I never said it was.
Of course not, not when it’s a certainty.
Right, but we are talking about taking those in the past, not the present. So the women at the time were comparing how safe these abortifacients are versus pregnancy and childbirth and possible forced proximity to the father.
https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/admire-the-3000-year-old-condom-of-the-egyptian-pharaoh-tutankhamun-archaeologists-are-amazed
We’ve had condoms a long time. No, they were not as efficient.
No offense, but you probably attract and demand a certain kind of sex. Sex is extremely varied. A lot of women like dick, but I know of many women who like oral. Either way, whatever some women enjoy with sex doesn’t mean they would engage in that if it risked their life and they could just be fingered or use a dildo (also a lot of ancient dildos). A lot of women are perfectly satisfied masturbating and not having a partner at all. The reason we invented modern methods is because people have been demanding its development.
And pulling out or finishing with oral after penetrative sex can be considered akin to birth control, while also not perfect, it’s better than nothing especially in ancient times.
So when is this hypothetical society except in Christian nirvana sexual fantasy?
You’ve had sex with women in modern times with access to birth control, so lucky you, you get to have more penetrative sex. If it was going to kill her, like in ancient times, you’d probably both do other stuff if you cared about her. Or masturbate. People aren’t entitled to sex.
The point is that lesbian sex is often nonpenetrative and those women in lesbian relationships report higher sexual satisfaction and more orgasms.
Back then, women would’ve known someone (friend, cousin, sister, aunt) who died in childbirth and would have taken it seriously as a risk. Just like we take driving seriously today because it carries a risk of harm, so we wear seatbelts and have airbags. We decided these were a good idea due to the history of carriages and cars, and gave up some freedom and comfort so we could increase health outcomes. Like with modern birth control.
Eg, 20th century postcard advocating for birth control and freedom of choice: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Victorian_Postcard_-_woman_hitting_stork_with_parasol.jpg
Unrelated Image for fun, Blessed Are the MeekI… agree with you. I don’t know how to say it, but to me all your arguments bring support. But not in absolute terms.
What I mean is that I recognized from the start that it would have an effect. But I can’t imagine penetrative sex would be entirely gone. And you referred to pull out, or finishing with non-penetrative sex. That also carries risk of pregnancy. Even pre-sejaculate can lead to pregnancy.
Cars are actually a great example of people not making the wisest choices. In cities, we have the option of building denser, building infrastructure for bikes, and having really convenient and frequent public transit for safer, greener, and healthier cities. Instead, by and large, people prefer sparser cities, with plenty of space to park their car, and streets for their car, not for bikes. They choose the perceived confort and convenience of cars over the possibility of avoiding killing pedestrians, which happens all the time, polluting people around with heavy metals, polluting the atmosphere with green house gas, and causing themselves and their family to have more chance of getting heart problems and other health problems from being inactive.
Women can know of other women dying from childbirth, but think it can’t possibly happen to them. Or let themselves be carried by passion. Or think that if their partner pull early, nothing will happen. Or they will be better at it, this time, than before when they got pregnant. Or invite their partner to cum over their body, thinking it won’t land on their vulva, or it’s no big deal if it happens. Or a ton of other justifications / beliefs leading to not avoiding risks completely.
I’m too sleepy to find the correct words now to continue on this train of thought, but I think you get what I mean. My position is that fear of maternal death would have an effect in such a society, but not enough to completely reduce the number of children down to only those who were fully wanted and planned for. But your arguments did make me reconsider the rate of that effect.