Contraception: Civil War Style

[johan_steele]

Ole, Raymond; Want to bet? I went to a Catholic school for several years...

[rbenne]

Shane;

maybe you was just better lookin then me back then, or luckier, or had better moves. But I had the worst luck there.....

[ole]

Shane:

Didn't work for me. But then, I was a greaser and didn't attract much of anything.

[johan_steele]

Ole & Raymond I was the thin gangly poor boy among rich kids at the Catholic school and I hated it w/ a passion. I also had a bit of a reputation for being uncommonly vicious. Frankly, the hypocricy prevelant in that particular Catholic school drove me from Catholicism. I watched what was going on around me, who was doing what... to whom and spent a large part of my time w/ my friends from "public."

Back to the thread. I'm tempted to agree w/ the opinion that contraception wasn't as prevelant as perhaps implied elsewhere on the thread. A woman who wanted a child, I think, was more common than one who did not. Those who did not were well aware of prevention techniques through necessity and association.

I don't know how common pre-marital sex was, but we all know it happened. Young men and young women and their teenage hormones haven't changed all that much. And of coarse there have always been men w/ less than honorable intentions and promiscuous women.

In some ways it really is frightening how little we really know about the period.

[rbenne]

I strongly believe premarital sex was no where near as common as it is today, or even in my day. Simple reason is the sexual revolution of 20th century happended due to a technology that had not yet been invented. The automobile

Kids could "get away", far away , easily. Its not just that they were more moral then we were (I believe strongly that they were though) but they did not have the oppotunities we did.

[jenna]

You guys are just having WAY too much fun with this thread I think!!!! I can see where the thinking process is coming from here!! I'm laughing at all of these entries!!

But Shane, you are right, there is so much we don't know about the era. But Kim does have a point that you can learn allot from personal diaries and letters, and although rare, I think they have got to be out there somewhere.

Jenna

[Kim M.]

Thanks Jenna. Yes, I do have a point, and I've obviously hit a nerve, which is good. At least people are talking about the subject. I don't expect everyone to agree with what I have written, and I could speculate as to why some couples had large families. I'm sure some of the reasons given here are true.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their belief, and some of you are echoing what I've already said but in a different way. Still, I have researched the subject. Please, check out my sources, which are listed at the end of my articles. Diaries and letters on the subject are hardly rare. The fact that it was often written about in euphemisms and metaphors
can make it easily missed. Because I have researched the topic, I'm always open to new findings, and when I discover them, I'll write new articles.

One book that I found particularly eye opening on the topic was The Mosher Survey. If you haven't heard of it, it's kind of a Victorian Kinsey report. It's not a scientific survey by any means, but it certainly lends a very honest look inside the private side of Victorian life. The reprint may be out of print now, but I'm sure a used copy can be picked up. I do wonder why so many spend so much time making certain uniforms and battle tactics are correct, but feel that it's okay to make generalizations on the social aspects. Yes, we can always find someone who fits the stereotype, but does that accurately reflect the era?

Btw--the premarital pregnancy rate was 25% at the time of the Civil War. I guess they didn't need automobiles to sneak out from under their parents' eyes. ;-)

[rbenne]

Kim

Can I ask the source of the 25% number, sounds rather high to me,

[blue_zouave]

Zou will jump in on that one... the figure cited comes from Thomas Lowry, M.D.'s book, "The Story the Soldiers Wouldn't Tell." Do not have the book in front of me to see whom Dr. Lowry cites for the information!

In spite of popular belief, I don't think that our ancestors were "purer" or "more moral" than people today. My genealogy research shows a lot of five month firstborns and interesting living arrangements.

Zou

[8thvacav]

Zou,
The first child can come anytime. The second takes nine months......lol
Martin