Is it true that people in the middle ages were actually very promiscuous...

This. People who still believe black legend tier myths about the Middle Ages need to get with the times.

All incorrect.

In the USA before 1910 the recorded numbers of people having sex before marriage was 61% of men and 12% of women. 5th to 15th century Europe would have been even lower because of lower ages of marriage and brothels not being readily available for men to frequent.

In the middle ages we would probably be seeing a situation similar to the middle east in regards to marriage, with older early 20s men marrying younger teenage women.

Premarital sex only became more frequent in our societies when the median age of marriage began to rise, horny teenagers were no longer getting married. With the introduction of mass produced birth control methods the situation became even more pronounced. Condoms and pills became easy to use and cheap.

Today not only does society have numerous methods to perform safe sex but the Government is also willing to provide support to single mothers.

Basically promiscuity is a result of modern luxuries. People don't get married at an early age, birth control is affordable and there is little consequence to being a single mother.

Societies change, our ancestors were not like us at all.

This. The Medievil people were just like us. Only the ruling class were allowed to have sex.

Villages are also tight knit communities which tended to shun and pressure young men/women who fucked outside of marriage. The number of illegitimate children rose drastically when cities expanded for exactly this reason.

>61% of men, 12% of women
hmmm.....

Numbers might be messed up because men like to lie about experience and women like to lie about a lack of experience.

It could just be brothels and that one slut that fucked everyone tho.

You're forgetting a very, very important thing and that thing is non-penetrative sex. Chances are beyond high that people fooled around in that way in secret. The Middle Ages were a passionate age. You probably don't even know that the Virgin Mary was often drawn, written about and sculpted in an erotic manner, since you're a pleb.

The prime difference between us and them is that we went too far with shit.

People dont' seem to realize that the Victorian era was very prudish compared to any. There are stories of men surprised that their wives have pubic hair because greek statues didn't, though like I said, its more of a modern construct. In the middle ages MONKS of all people often wrote about pussy.

...

>before 1910
>recorded numbers
Well there's your problem, ma'am.

>When people post art painted centuries after the period in question as proof of something

>When people make assumptions of something being the same centuries ago as it was today because "humans don't change lol"

>Veeky Forums - History & Humanities

I guess the common punishment for criminals in the middle ages was imprisonment because that's how it is today. XDXDXD

People don't change 'all that much.' We're not talking about grand philosophical views on the nature of Divine mystery or their politics concerning state centralization and international trade, we're talking about sex, which is something we're pretty sure people were having, enjoying, and abusing.

People have always liked sex, and to the extent it has been regulated or forbidden, people have found ways to break the rules.

No one is saying people didn't enjoy sex back then, they're saying being promiscuous was far too risky for women. Enjoying sex and having sex is not being promiscuous. The risks of being promiscuous in the medieval period were far greater than they are today.

I'm sure married couples had endless amount of sex seeing how there was little else to do, especially in rural communities. To say that medieval people were as promiscuous as we are today or to even say it was common is just insane.

very few women were virgin when they married. they were deflowered in the woods or in the field by whatever local beta who wanted to please them

Sex is a sacred act of love between husband and wife.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Marriage is when Trump gets one of his lackeys to sign your certificate if you kiss the ring on his finger.

found the beta full of spooks

Found the atheist relativist retard.

this guy thinks being a relativist is a bad thing LOL

Depends on the area, culture, etc, but in general people are insanely promiscuous.

I mean, I know nobody likes /r9k/, but if we're honest with ourselves they're pretty spot on when it comes to dissecting sexuality.

I lived and worked in a small rural town in a third world country without all the modern comforts we take for granted like constant electricity, tv, mail, internet, access to birth control, etc. If anything I think the people fucked around more just because there was nothing to do.

I imagine in the Middle Ages the average girl was getting pounded by half the village. Why do you think those pre-modern tribes people had such intense social stigma about marrying outside the tribe? Because who wants to marry a girl who you've seen being used as the village cockpuppet since she was 13 years old, that's why. Virgin academics say shit about social evolution against incest and shit, but the real reason is that people need to lie to themselves to some extent to have fulfilling relationships, because nobody wasn't a to marry the girl that just last moon was getting gangbanged by the entire hunting squad because they caught the biggest deer.

Being wrong is bad, yes.

Nothing could be more relativist than Christian "morals", which vacillate between psychopathic evil and moronic simplicity.

>sex before marriage is the only kind of promiscuity there is
in the medieval after people got married nobody cared if they were a virgin anymore so they were free to fuck whoever they wanted

read Boccaccio some time

Ew.

What happens if there is nobody to marry you?

Which marriage rituals does god pay attention to, and which does he ignore?

>of course not, son, it's whatever god decides is moral

>if you disagree, he's more powerful than you, so he's in the right

Women married on average a lot younger than men and thus are less likely to have premarital relations.

>brothels not being readily available
>In medieval Europe

Boy, what? Prostitution was incredibly rampant in the medieval and early modern period. Practically any primary source mentions whores.

Seems more likely that the women would just lie. Kinda unlikely that 61% of men were having premarital sex with just 12% of women.

That premarital sex was harshly looked down upon by society until fairly recently means that few people would be dumb enough to actually admit that they did it.

So unless your census was performed by God the numbers are useless trash.

>r9k is spot on

R9k is mentally ill.

A woman is less likely to sleep around if:
>Birth control does not exist
>Government/community doesn't support single mothers
>Religion of the community says being promiscuous is a sin

People in poor countries that you claim sleep around are not necessarily even being promiscuous. Poor countries youth marry earlier than wealthy ones. Its not being promiscuous if they are a couple. Again no one is saying rural communities don't spend a lot of time fucking. They do.

The smaller a community the less likely that sort of behaviour will be user. Do you think the wives of the hunting party members will be happy that their partner is sharing resources with another woman?

OPs question was also about the European medieval period. These people were more religious than we can imagine.

>bible says don't commit adultery
>insane bible thumping christians in medieval europe ignored that rule

These sorts of polls are usually asked when the people in question are much older and more willing to tell the truth.

The actual question asked was if people were promiscuous in those times.

The answer is fucking yes, with the amount of promiscuity likely rising proportionately with wealth and privilege.

Brothels are a city thing. Feudal Europe was a rural period. Most people in medieval europe wouldn't have lived close enough to a major town to visit a brothel.

Google what promiscuous means user.

We can only guess how promiscuous the average person was. However by looking at existing information about why being promiscuous rose over time we can easily conclude that it was less rare in the medieval period.

Monarchs that were promiscuous are often recorded as being so. Judging by just how few monarchs are recorded as being promiscuous and the punishments noble women recieved for sleeping around we can also imagine it was something not many people risked.

>Is it true that people in the middle ages were actually very promiscuous?

Was the actual question. You can debate the exact meaning behind OPs question.

My answer is that compared to todays levels of promiscuity medieval europe was not promiscuous at all.

>My answer is that compared to todays levels of promiscuity medieval europe was not promiscuous at all.
they were in cities

they wanted to be in countrysides

>fucking whores is promiscuity

Again. Google. Promiscuous

>Promiscuous
>Promiscuity is the practice of having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. The term can carry a moral judgement if the social ideal for sexual activity is monogamous relationships. Wikipedia

Yes. Sex was a much less taboo subject and frequent before the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A good platform to begin from is Michel Foucault's Histoire de la sexualité in which he makes the argument that sex and sexual deviances that we think of today were much less "sacred" and hidden from society before the enlightenment and the push to rationalise everything that was human.

Pre-marital sex was frequent and though whores were looked down upon in society, those who went to them were not seen as degenerates but instead as men trying to release urges.

Of course this was different for women who were in a weird position where they were seen as "virtuous and beautiful" but also needed to be "controlled" as they were thought to be "pleasure seekers" by society.

>"Private enterprise prostitution had flourished in Europe since time immemorial, and nothing its rulers could do succeeded in stemming the tide. Indeed, when St. Louis (Louis IX of France) tried to put an end to it, the irate bourgeois of Paris complained that it was no longer safe for their wives and daughters to appear upon the streets. . . The number of “public women” in Rome in 1490 is believed to have been about 7,000, which was a reflection of the fact that the Eternal City was inhabited mainly by men; the women lived in houses belonging to monasteries and churches, and it was quite usual to see them parading the streets in company with priests."

Tannahill, Reay. 1980. Sex in history. New York: Stein and Day.278

ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/taylorgr/sxnhst/chap2.htm

>In the later period frank sexuality is also betrayed by the clothing. In the fourteenth century, for instance, women wore low-necked dresses, so tight round the hips as to reveal their sex, and laced their breasts so high that, as was said, "a candle could be stood upon them". (184) Men wore short coats, revealing their private parts, which were clearly outlined by a glove-like container known as a braguette, compared with which the codpiece was a modest object of attire. (95)

they wouldn't have made a rule against it if people weren't doing it

that's the genius of christianity, you can do whatever sin you want as long as you tell the priest about it and say you're sorry

>People are less likely to sleep around if...
Wrong. Look at literally any poor Catholic country if you don't believe me.

Like I said, I'm speaking from experience of spending time living in a small town (about 3000-5000 ppl) in a third world, highly religious, country.

People have been fucking like rabbits since the beginning of time. That's exactly why /r9k/ isn't mentally ill, it's nice to tell yourself that all women used to be innocent virgins, but the reality is outside of a couple weird communities, the vast majority of women throughout history spent their nights getting pounded by Ogg Thunderclub, they cheated on their spouses if they married early, and have always been generally shitty sex machines.

Prostitution is not promiscuity. Its a different matter all together. Promiscuity refers to free and casual sex.

Except poor catholic south american countries breed and fuck like rabbita but generally speaking most of the fucking is happening between two people. That isn't being promiscuous.

No one is assuming women are pure waifu virgins. I am just saying most women think ahead 9 months not 9 minutes. Women choosing the top male partners has nothing to do with the discussion.

No it's the same. It's the idea of having casual sex with multiple partners. That is very much what is involved in prostitution.

To add to my point the same board your citing as evidence also supports studies that say a virgin bride is statistically less likely to cheat of their spouse. Stop with your cuckhold fantasies.

Its not the same idea at all.

One is a job.

The other is sex for the sake of it.

You don't even realise how having lots of brothels just prives me right.

If most women slept around brothels wouldn't profit. This is actually becoming a problem for brothels in western countries because most younger men can get sex without marriage now.

>This is actually becoming a problem for brothels in western countries because most younger men can get sex without marriage now.
>most younger men

Chad fucks stacy tender roast

user fucks casey chlamydia cunt

Just because you're shoveling shit for money doesn't mean you're not shoveling shit. You're trying really hard and failing so hard.

Not to mention it still proves that men were more promiscuous back then too.

The term promiscuous does not apply to paying for sex. They're both having sex but for different reasons.

Even today people don't consider a promiscuous woman on the same level as a prostitute. They are different terms.

Men paying for sex isn't being promiscuous either. Please read the definition of promiscuity.

More 'noble' or higher born women were likely held to this standard. Why do you think virginity was held in such high esteem? Probably because it was so rare.

The vast majority of the population were peasants, and were not so beholden to super strict interpretations of canon law (of course, in theory they were).

While people were certainly overall more religious or superstitious than is the average today, I would doubt that everyone was always super dogmatic about it.

>Brothels are a city thing

source on this?

In medieval times, some of today's more common STDs didn't exist. Lice were a problem, and I'm sure yeast infections, gonorrhoea (brought back from the middle east by crusaders) and such could pop up, but we're talking relatively mild stuff.

Herbalists and folk medicine most certainly existed, usually the realm of old widows. How do you think the idea of witches came about? They knew that some herbs and shit caused contractions or otherwise resulted in miscarriage.

A city has a larger female population. Most women won't do it but say one every one hundred will. Cities also tend to be free of tighter community groups that refuse to allow their daughters and family to do such work.

You've been reading too many fantasy novels. Every villiage did not have an old wise woman that knew secret herbal remedies.

sex between two beautiful women is the highest form of love, only filthy plebians think act of love between husband and wife is higher than girl on girl.

If the anthologies of folk chronicles made by ethnographers in mid 19th century Austrian empire are to be believed, people were about as promiscuous as today, except the consequences for such actions were harsher, specially for women.

>1900's US
>A good valeur etalon for such discussion
Choose one and only one.
Otherwise good analysis

Were there jigaboos in medieval villages? Or like Europe. Was everyone white?

THICC

>Christians were degenerates just like us

Fuck off atheicucks

They were far more moral than any of you

No. All white as it should be.

>Christians are so dumb, amirite?

Brothels.
The men might not be married by the women could be.
I'm sure there's more logical ways to account for it if you stop and think about it for a bit.

Yes and the poor innocent men were doing none of that. They are truly the victims here.

Geez buddy. You have some problems. But hey, fertility rates among Caucasians are dropping and young people are having less sex these days. Hope you're happy.

Just accept that you're socially maladapted. Be happy you're in civilization and not out in the wild, where most animals don't even make it to breeding age.

You can either work on yourself and become a more attractive person, or you can continue to rot, stewing in your tub of sour grapes.

how do we objectively measure morality?
>with the LAWD JEEZUZ YEEHAWW!!!
But how do we know what God's will is?
>WAT IN TARNATION ARE YOU SOME KIND OF COMMUNIST!?!?!1 GOD'S WILL IS OBVIOUSLY WHATEVER I SAY IT IS!

Christians are the worst when it comes to relativism. Maybe if you handle more snakes or thump more Bibles Jeezus will answer your prayers with more than a 50-50 ratio

Oh look, It's another installment of "Kissless loveless /r9k/ NEETS invade Veeky Forums in order to peddle their pet theories of female virtue and purity and social decay in an attempt to blame wider society as the reason why they haven't gotten laid yet".

Maybe you should spend less time being jealous of Chad and more time lifting, brah.