
Sex and the Industrial Revolution - benbreen
http://historytoday.com/emma-griffin/sex-and-industrial-revolution
======
gsibble
I disagree with her conclusion that "we should not conclude that they were
experiencing some kind of early sexual emancipation". Why shouldn't we?
Younger girls were enjoying sex out of wedlock precisely because they could.
Why would they have sex and risk raising a child unless it was pleasurable?

------
FrojoS
Very interesting read and full of details and primary sources. If you are not
used to ancient British, keep a dictionary handy.

Call me naive, but it had not occurred to me before, that marriage ought to be
lavish, not because its an important social event but because it ought to be
unaffordable expensive for the young and the poor.

------
michaelsbradley
Whenever I read a piece that is bullish on contraception and the sexual
revolution of the 1960s, I become a little disheartened to think how many
people today have such a dim view of sex and their own human nature. Sex is
about but pleasure, but also so much more. See John Paul II's Theology of the
Body:

[http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm](http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm)

This information should be lovingly and shared with young persons, even (and
especially) when it challenges us as adults and requires us to grow in
maturity and understanding.

Also, there are wonderful modern, "open source" and free alternatives to
pharmaceutical contraception, barrier methods and surgical sterilization, not
to mention chemical and surgical abortion. I would invite readers here to
learn about modern NFP and to help spread the word:

[http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/](http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/)

[http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-
family/n...](http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-
family/natural-family-planning/what-is-nfp/nfp-basic-information.cfm)

~~~
hvs
The "rhythm method" is notoriously ineffective, and relying on the word of a
celibate man for an understanding of sex is a bit strange. Also, 90% of what
he is explaining assumes you believe in the theology of the Catholic church,
which a lot of people don't.

Also, I hardly believe that a lot of people have a "dim view of sex," and if
they do, it is most likely because they grew up in the Catholic Church. Trust
me, I know because I did.

~~~
michaelsbradley
The Billings Method != "rhythm method". And there are other similar methods
that belong to the modern NFP family, grounded in well-researched medical
science and backed by clinical trials.

~~~
kungfooguru
I've never understood why the Billings method is OK with the Church but other
forms of contraception aren't. Either way you are purposely having sex for the
pleasure and attempting as best you can to not get pregnant.

Oh it is "natural", right, because the Catholic Church requires only "natural"
remedies for things?

I use quotes since I don't even agree that Billings Method is any more natural
than a condom or the pill.

It simply takes more freedom away from the woman to choose when and how she
has sex.

~~~
michaelsbradley
There are a variety of resources for learning more about the reasoning behind
the Catholic Church's moral teachings. The following might be a helpful
starting point regarding NFP:

 _Birth Control and NFP: What 's the Difference?_

[http://www.priestsforlife.org/library/4741-birth-control-
and...](http://www.priestsforlife.org/library/4741-birth-control-and-nfp-
whats-the-difference)

"NFP is not just a 'method' based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on
_virtue_. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy
marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their
desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a
healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of
showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is
itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each
other, 'I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I
love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is
because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an
urge.' Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days
if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple's
sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons,
they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each
other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial
birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make
pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to
think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to
become slaves to pleasure."

~~~
kungfooguru
Nothing about using alternative methods means you can't still do all the
abstinence stuff in addition.

I was raised Catholic. The way sex is viewed, and the idea of Mary being a
virgin until death (somehow ignoring Jesus having multiple brothers and
sisters...) being added hundreds of years later and requiring celibacy shows a
very odd obsession with sex.

Not to mention the known history of purposely inventing rules to benefit the
Church. Priests children before they were no longer allowed to marry and have
sex became Church property.

~~~
martin1b
Couldn't agree more with Michael. These posts are difficult to read and is the
result of a sex crazed society.

Regarding comments, my wife and I practice the 'alternative method' and
speaking from EXPERIENCE, IT IS EFFECTIVE. In fact, if you look at the
numbers, it's more effective than IVF for achieving and 99% effective in
preventing. Like all things, you have to understand what you're doing. Also,
it is not from the 'word of a celibate man' but is from years of medical
research. Here is one
([http://naprotechnology.com/](http://naprotechnology.com/)).

So many of us are so quick to eat genetically engineered food or take
contraceptives that may increase our risk of cancer
(source:[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-
contr...](http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-
contraceptives)) but we aren't interested in a safe approach, which also is
(and more importantly) falls into God's plan. If you read Humane Vitae or
other church documents on the subject, it makes perfect sense. No really, just
read it. It's a short read.
[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/docume...](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-
vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)

The church does not have an obsession with sex. Rather, mankind has the
obsession with sex and the church is trying to help us understand it's proper
place. Since contraception has been widely adopted in the US, divorce, STDs,
rape and illegitimate children has sky rocketted. Very unfortunate, but
predicted in the 1960s in Humanae Vitae.

------
vain
It surprises me how opinion can be written off as fact.

Emma Griffin speculates about how social customs come about and just states
them as fact. I was looking for citations to references/studies. There are
none. At best there are anecdotes.

I googled up Emma Griffin, and she seems to be a celebrated historian
[http://emmagriffin.info/](http://emmagriffin.info/) .

I do not know what to make of this otherwise interesting write up. Or is it
just science that requires any rigor in what is said?

~~~
icegreentea
Uh, a couple things to consider:

a) This is an article in a magazine, not a research journal. The standards are
inherently different. This is similar to the lower level of 'rigour' demanded
out of scientific magazine articles, as opposed to research journals.

b) Huge chunks of history consists of interpreting evidence. In so much as
interpreting is a matter of opinion, this is pretty much an opinion piece.
Historians really don't have any offer a citation to back up their
interpretations. Certainly, it helps, but the point is that they offer up
evidence (in the form of selections of contemporary journal entries), and then
interpret that evidence, and present it to you. You're suppose to accept or
reject (or wherever on the spectrum) this interpretation based on your
critical faculties and own background knowledge.

c) Since we actually do lack 'objective' measurements for huge amounts of
things that we really are curious about in the past, all we have are
anecdotes. We cannot perform experiments on the past. Archeology is limited.
Conclusions drawn from normal historical methods are certainly limited, and
heavily influenced by biases, but that's pretty much all we have to work with.

