Since we keep talking about TeA

[Moxie]

DH and I are watching Peaky Blinders on Netflix. There is a good deal of casual TeA. It makes me wonder, before reliable BC, did people really have casual TeA like that or is it just for TV??

 

Peaky Blinders, btw, is a great show but you have to have a high tolerance for violence and TeA drinking.

[Slache]

I think that everyone everywhere just withdrew. Or got married young.

[kiana]

It was well known that an eager young bride could accomplish in 5 months what took 9 months for cow or countess.

[Garga]

I always wonder about that.  I got pregnant immediately upon stopping BC.  Both times.  No waiting.  No bc + sex = pregnant Garga.  

 

How did they handle not getting pregnant ALL THE TIME before there was BC??

[Guest]

I wonder if we are more fertile due to better health and nutrition?

[Angie in VA]

Well we don't use bc by and large and have plenty of frequent tea. Babies result. The time while babies are incubating is extra awesome for tea, in fact.

 

I do think nutrition impacts fertility, as does age.

 

I have super clear fertility signs so if I wanted to avoid I certainly could, but we very, very rarely plan it that way. We just shrug and go for it anyway.

 

2nd trimester = the *fun* trimester

 

:coolgleamA:

[Elisabet1]

My husband mentioned he had started watching that, but I had no idea what it was.

[Barb_]

In the 80s I remember reading that teen pregnancy was actually lower than it was in previous generations. It was out of wedlock teen pregnancies that were higher.

 

I asked my mom how my grandparents managed to avoid more than two pregnancies in the 40s, 50d and 60s and she told me "condoms". What about their parents in the 20s, 30s and 40s? "Separate bedrooms."

 

While doing ancestry I noticed that the vast majority of people had 5, 6, 8, 12 children. But many of them died before adulthood.

[Elisabet1]

Maybe people did not have as many babies because their houses were smaller so they could not get privacy?

[Barb_]

Maybe people did not have as many babies because their houses were smaller so they could not get privacy?

Pretty sure children just learned about the facts of life at a much earlier age.

[Guest]

In the 80s I remember reading that teen pregnancy was actually lower than it was in previous generations. It was out of wedlock teen pregnancies that were higher.

 

I asked my mom how my grandparents managed to avoid more than two pregnancies in the 40s, 50d and 60s and she told me "condoms". What about their parents in the 20s, 30s and 40s? "Separate bedrooms."

 

While doing ancestry I noticed that the vast majority of people had 5, 6, 8, 12 children. But many of them died before adulthood.

I think this is a lot of it. Health and nutrition also plays a role. Also, fertility does wax and wane. Not that many people would just get immediately pregnant over decades if not preventing. It takes numerous factors, for instance, to end up with 20 kids à la Duggars.

 

My maternal gmother gave birth to five babies, but two died as newborns and my mother was a "miracle" who was premie and blue. Purportedly, the nurse handed my gmother her baby (my mom) and said, "She turns blue every time we remove oxygen, so I wouldn't hope for much."

[maize]

 

While doing ancestry I noticed that the vast majority of people had 5, 6, 8, 12 children. But many of them died before adulthood.

 

I had an interesting discussion with a statistician about this; turns out that ancestry research is not a good way to sample birthrates in the past. Those women who had many children are over-represented in the ancestry of people alive today by virtue of the fact that they had more descendants (so if 10% of women in the 1800's had 2 children and 10% had 8 children, those who had 8 will appear at a much higher rate than 10% frequency in ancestry research and those who had 2 at much lower than 10% frequency). Makes it look like average birthrates were higher than they were. Women who had no children don't turn up in direct line ancestor research at all.

 

Bunny trail, I know...

[busymama7]

I have actually pondered this a lot and have talked to a fair amount of people. I'm a midwife so obviously have that opportunity and also having a big family means people think my fertility is open for discussion so I don't mind turning it back to them ;)

 

Anyways I am amazed at how many people forgo birth control or use it very sporadically/selectively and do not have big families. I mean 3-5 over the course of 20 or so years. Some people are very very fertile but many are not.

 

I have had 10 in 17 years so on the more fertile side of things but I don't cycle until baby is at least 9 months and lately it's closer to 12 months so my babies are fairly spaced. Even without BC I didn't have as many Michelle duggar but still a big family.

[busymama7]

I had an interesting discussion with a statistician about this; turns out that ancestry research is not a good way to sample birthrates in the past. Those women who had many children are over-represented in the ancestry of people alive today by virtue of the fact that they had more descendants (so if 10% of women in the 1800's had 2 children and 10% had 8 children, those who had 8 will appear at a much higher rate than 10% frequency in ancestry research and those who had 2 at much lower than 10% frequency). Makes it look like average birthrates were higher than they were. Women who had no children don't turn up in direct line ancestor research at all.

 

Bunny trail, I know...

That is actually very fascinating and makes perfect sense. It also agrees with the idea that lack of BC does not automatically lead to dozens of babies.

[Barb_]

I had an interesting discussion with a statistician about this; turns out that ancestry research is not a good way to sample birthrates in the past. Those women who had many children are over-represented in the ancestry of people alive today by virtue of the fact that they had more descendants (so if 10% of women in the 1800's had 2 children and 10% had 8 children, those who had 8 will appear at a much higher rate than 10% frequency in ancestry research and those who had 2 at much lower than 10% frequency). Makes it look like average birthrates were higher than they were. Women who had no children don't turn up in direct line ancestor research at all.

 

Bunny trail, I know...

Wow that's actually in interesting point. Although I do notice that the women who never had children (sisters of my ancestors still living with parents and siblings in middle age) were also largely never married. Most of them lived in the backwoods of NC so pickings could be rather slim.

 

I found out I can trace my ancestry back to John Alden and Priscilla Mullins, which isn't as impressive as it sounds. Something like 2.5 millions Americans can because they had 480-some great grandchildren who have been multiplying for the last 325 years.

[elegantlion]

I have no idea about pregnancy, but Cillian Murphy might be worth rooting for the "bad" guys. I can't wait for season three.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I remember in high school when my friends and I figured out how many of our mothers and grandmothers had babies way closer to their wedding than 9 months. We were all kind of shocked, youngsters that we were.

[Mom in High Heels]

People have been using all sorts of birth control since ancient times, though some of them are just gross.  In ancient Egypt they soaked something (papyrus maybe) in donkey milk, and inserted it.  There was also some sort of past stuff that was used as a barrier, or a large rock inserted in the cervix to keep it open.

In later times though, there were condoms made of linen, silk or animal gut.  They were originally used to prevent the spread of disease.

Women also used the ends of small lemons or limes as cervical caps.  I don't how effective it was, but I imagine it made things smell lemony fresh.  :lol:  :lol:

[Anne in CA]

I don't know if I can EVER view lemony fresh the same way again. 

[mommymilkies]

Pretty sure children just learned about the facts of life at a much earlier age.

Yup.  In my family tree, most people have like 6+ kids in tiny houses and all lived to be very, very old.  So I have a feeling they liked going al fresco, or it wasn't as private as we modern folk tend to like it.  Have you read Angela's Ashes?  A bit of that in there.

[mommymilkies]

I have no idea about pregnancy, but Cillian Murphy might be worth rooting for the "bad" guys. I can't wait for season three.

Why else would you watch it?   :coolgleamA:

[LucyStoner]

Maybe people did not have as many babies because their houses were smaller so they could not get privacy?

No, far more common in the late 19th century was a whole family with a fairly large number of children in a small space like a 1-2 room cabin or flat.

 

Home sizes grew in the 20th century but not by much until fairly recently. When my son was an infant we rented a 1 bedroom house which consisted of a front room, with an eat in kitchen off to the side and a bedroom, bath and utility closet in the back. It was about 90 years old. The landlords lived several doors down and had owned the house since the 1940s. They had bought it from a family of 7-8 who had lived there. They lived there a few years with a few kids and built their new house and then kept it as a rental. Their daughter told me that she had babysat for the family who rented it for most of the 1950s and that family had 4-5 boys.

 

My father was the oldest of 9 kids raised in a middle class family. They lived in a post war box house house that started with 3 bedrooms and eventually had 5 when they finished the basement. They didn't finish the basement until my dad was a teenager.

 

House sizes have gone up while family sizes have gone down.

[JessReplanted]

I have been reading the Call the Midwife books (so good!) and she mentions that when birth control arrived on the scene, their deliveries went from around 100 babies per month to around 3. I found that fascinating. So, in that section of England, during that time in history, birth control made a huge difference. It would be interesting to find out if other areas of the world were impacted in such a huge way.

[LucyStoner]

People have always had way more premarital and extramartial sex than we tend to assume. Look at old bastardy bonds and court proceedings. Also, in much of the Middle Ages it was assumed that men would have premarital relations but later marry to produce legitimate heirs. And the ongoing, persistent presence of paid sex work can't be denied either. Sometimes birth control was used and other times not.

[La Condessa]

In my family history, going back to Bohemia in the 16 to 18 hundreds, it's clear they pretty much all just kept having kids at whatever interval was natural for that mother until she grew too old or died. As we compile those family records, one family may have an interval of about two years between babies and another may be about 3 1/2 years, but it's pretty easy to look at the spacing and see when a gap is too large, and you need to go back and check those years again to find the child you missed, or a gap is unusually small, so go check in the death record to find where the baby died. Families with only six to eight children are uncommon in these records, as ten to thirteen is more common. Not that the family was ever that large at one time, since so many of the children died in infancy or childhood.

 

The saddest one, I thought, was a family with fifteen children (most with variants of the same few names). Every few years the plague would come through and kill off a few more of the children. Four lived to adulthood, and one of those was a daughter who died at nineteen.

[IsabelC]

Lactational amenorrhea effected many women, particular in the lower classes where wet nursing was less common (alternative foods for babies have been around for centuries, there wasn't the regulated 'formula' that is more or less safe until the second half of the 20th century, so a lot more breastfeeding went on). Abortifacients were fairly widespread also.

[Ausmumof3]

Lactation is only good for 3-4 years max and doesn't work for everyone. Even at 4 years that's 5 kids.

 

Miscarriage and childhood mortality were high . In certain cultures and times infanticide was practised too, as awful as it is to think of

[Carrie12345]

I can't really speak for the casual sex aspect of the question, but I can say I've been very surprised by how many stories of secondary infertility issues I've been hearing.  I guess that's technically "normal-ish" for my age group, but it's been over the course of several years now and many of the women I've heard from are a few years younger than me. I'm 37.  

 

I'm pretty sure I came across something recently that said 40% of babies are born out of wedlock today.   And 50% of pregnancies are unplanned by the most basic definition. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean casual sex, but that certainly must factor in.

[IsabelC]

Lactation is only good for 3-4 years max and doesn't work for everyone. Even at 4 years that's 5 kids.

Yes. But even if, say, 1/4 of women had a baby every 3 years instead of a baby every 1 year, that's a significant reduction in babies born population-wide.

Miscarriage and childhood mortality were high . In certain cultures and times infanticide was practised too, as awful as it is to think of

Yes, it is my understanding that infanticide has been comparatively common over the history of humankind. This is especially so when you factor in passive infanticide - such as placing a child in a setting that has 90-99% mortality rate - which has been more common than active infanticide.

 

And we mustn't forget that husband/partner turnover has often been quite high as well. Many women spent chunks of their reproductive years as widows or with their men on extended absence or incapacitated due to events such as wars, pestilence and so on.

 

But casual TeA, well it depends on your definition of casual, but I'm not convinced that there was ever a time when the majority of people were into current conservative notions of chastity, monogamy and wedlock (I don't think I have ever met anybody who even uses the word wedlock irl, so obviously I don't move in those circles!).

 

 

 

[Deee]

As one of the few Aussies here, can I just say that this comment:

"Cillian Murphy might be worth rooting for"

has a whole other meaning in a thread about TeA!

D

[JumpyTheFrog]

I get annoyed at all the "end of the world" type shows where nobody ever gets pregnant, despite a complete lack of contraception. Off the top of my head: Lost, Revolution, and Falling Skies. They ought to be having characters getting pregnant and STDs left and right.

[Alicia64]

Well we don't use bc by and large and have plenty of frequent tea. Babies result. The time while babies are incubating is extra awesome for tea, in fact.

 

I do think nutrition impacts fertility, as does age.

 

I have super clear fertility signs so if I wanted to avoid I certainly could, but we very, very rarely plan it that way. We just shrug and go for it anyway.

 

Sorry to hijack. . . but would you share what keeps you, um, engaged in the frequency?!

 

I'd owe you big time!

 

Alley

[Forget-Me-Not]

This thread is fascinating. And it made me think of the current story line on Downton Abbey. I had no idea that diaphragms were available in pre-WWII England. Not that I claim to be any sort of contraception expert, but I didn't realize they had been around so long. I knew condoms, in some form or another, have been around since ancient times.

 

This is one of those areas where I am insanely grateful for modern medical technology!

[wonderchica]

Well, based off watching The Tudors, fancy people in Ye Olden Times were mostly brewing Tea in a flavor that doesn't result in babies ;)

[Guest]

I get annoyed at all the "end of the world" type shows where nobody ever gets pregnant, despite a complete lack of contraception. Off the top of my head: Lost, Revolution, and Falling Skies. They ought to be having characters getting pregnant and STDs left and right.

My mother used to watch "soaps". Even when I was young, it annoyed me when people woke up beautiful and perfect and started kissing right away. Even beautiful people get morning breath!!

[kiana]

I get annoyed at all the "end of the world" type shows where nobody ever gets pregnant, despite a complete lack of contraception. Off the top of my head: Lost, Revolution, and Falling Skies. They ought to be having characters getting pregnant and STDs left and right.

 

Oh, no kidding. But it also bugs me that they have the end of the world happening -- and yet they don't really start to look skinny and haggard. I mean, yes, it's TV, but ...

[IsabelC]

My mother used to watch "soaps". Even when I was young, it annoyed me when people woke up beautiful and perfect and started kissing right away. Even beautiful people get morning breath!!

 

And they never get panda eyes from sleeping in full makeup ;)

[Loowit]

People have always had methods to try to prevent pregnancy, some more effective than others.  I recently watched a documentary on WWI and was amazed that at one point condoms became standard issue for soldiers, mainly to prevent the rapid spread of STDs.  In my family history many marriages were due to pregnancy.  Both of my grandmothers got pg at 16 because of being pregnant.  One of my great-grandmothers had quiet a few children, we aren't sure how many.  She had 3 with her husband before she left him.  And then went on to have a number of other by various men.  She would go away for a "rest" for a number of months.  I think that is what happened to a lot of unmarried young women who got pregnant.  They would go visit a relative for a few months and then give the baby up for adoption and hope that no one figured it out.

 

But not everyone is fertile and many are sub-fertile.  If DH and I had been married decades ago we never would have had children.  I know many couples that can't get pregnant, have secondary infertility, or needed help to have the few children that they have.

[bolt.]

I think people also did get pregnant.

 

In one book I read, I was shocked to hear a casual correlation that "single mother" automatically meant "sex worker." For married women, the legal husband was always the legal father, even when there was evidence, confession, or protestation to the contrary. A married man was considered legally responsible for all of his wife's offspring. (Those laws of 'legal fatherhood' are still on the books in my province. If a legally married woman has a baby, the husband's name is listed on the birth certificate, and must be *removed* if it is not the actual case.)

 

I think perhaps people didn't feel as obligated to "act like parents" the way we consider normal. Even as recently as my mother's childhood, the basic duties were shelter, food, clothing, and not allowing truancy -- not really any level of supervision or nurture. Good parenting was seen in whether a was clean. Cleanliness meant someone was paying attention to the child, beyond 'a roof, and not starving' levels. I guess I mean that having a pack of kids beyond babyhood might not have been quite as much work as we might imagine, for those who weren't interested in parenting.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, based off watching The Tudors, fancy people in Ye Olden Times were mostly brewing Tea in a flavor that doesn't result in babies ;)

 

But if one actually read the history they would know that Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn both lost several children. There were only four surviving children from *at least* eleven known pregnancies, including those of Bessie Blount, his mistress. Had Katherine Seymour survived she likely would have seen the same losses that her predecessors did.

 

There is some postulation that Henry VIII's blood contained the Kell antigen which resulted in many miscarriages and birth losses.

[Delighted3]

I remember in high school when my friends and I figured out how many of our mothers and grandmothers had babies way closer to their wedding than 9 months. We were all kind of shocked, youngsters that we were.

 

My Dad used to say that the second baby takes 9 months, the first can come at any time ;)

 

[Tangerine]

And then there are women like me who do no birth control or supplementing, feed on demand, cosleep, etc, and still begin ovulating with regular cycles at 6-9 months postpartum. Boooo!

All of those things, and 6-9 WEEKS. My body hates me. Or I hate it. I don't know. We are at an impasse.

[hornblower]

Just watching an episode of  TC Foundations of Western Civ 2 w/ Bucholz & he just said 'it is estimated that 1/2 of babies born in major European cities between 1830-1850 were illegitimate'

I suspect infanticide was very real & of course there were many foundling homes & orphanages ---> many were sources of cheap labour for the industrial revolution....

[barnwife]

And then there are women like me who do no birth control or supplementing, feed on demand, cosleep, etc, and still begin ovulating with regular cycles at 6-9 months postpartum. Boooo!

Eh... you're normal.  The following is from www.kellymom.com

 

Exclusive breastfeeding (by itself) is 98-99.5% effective in preventing pregnancy as long as all of the following conditions are met:

1. Your baby is less than six months old
2. Your menstrual periods have not yet returned
3. Baby is breastfeeding on cue (both day & night), and gets nothing but breastmilk or only token amounts of other foods.

    

    

I've read other places that taking a daily nap with baby helps, as does not using any pacifiers or bottles.

 

Anyway, I agree with many others about other birth control methods existing (even if not that effective). 

[Guest]

Here is my other (crude, inappropriate) question.

 

Given how easy it is for two people to enjoy a cup of tea without the tea bag ever entering the pot (thereby avoiding the side effects 9 months later), and given that, statistically, most women aren't brought to boil by dunking the bag, why didn't "creative tea drinking" ever catch on as the main form of tea drinking for people who weren't looking to have a child?

[Ottakee]

Here is my other (crude, inappropriate) question.

 

Given how easy it is for two people to enjoy a cup of tea without the tea bag ever entering the pot (thereby avoiding the side effects 9 months later), and given that, statistically, most women aren't brought to boil by dunking the bag, why didn't "creative tea drinking" ever catch on as the main form of tea drinking for people who weren't looking to have a child

What is really scary is that I actually UNDERSTAND what you are saying here..................the things we learn.

[Slache]

Here is my other (crude, inappropriate) question.

 

Given how easy it is for two people to enjoy a cup of tea without the tea bag ever entering the pot (thereby avoiding the side effects 9 months later), and given that, statistically, most women aren't brought to boil by dunking the bag, why didn't "creative tea drinking" ever catch on as the main form of tea drinking for people who weren't looking to have a child?

 

Probably just a personal preference. I like regular tea. My favorite part is what results in that particular side effect so drinking special tea or tea in a bag just isn't as satisfying.

[Sherry in OH]

Here is my other (crude, inappropriate) question.

 

Given how easy it is for two people to enjoy a cup of tea without the tea bag ever entering the pot (thereby avoiding the side effects 9 months later), and given that, statistically, most women aren't brought to boil by dunking the bag, why didn't "creative tea drinking" ever catch on as the main form of tea drinking for people who weren't looking to have a child?

 

In some times and places such behavior was considered deviant and punishable by law.  Massachusetts Bay Colony is one example of a place where reproduction was supposed to be the goal of sexual activity.   Protestant ethic - reproductive sexual behavior within the bounds of marriage was a duty.  Outside of marriage and/or non-reproductive in nature was a sin.  

 

For details, see Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (http://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Matters-History-Sexuality-America/dp/0226142647)

[Melissa in Australia]

And then there are women like me who do no birth control or supplementing, feed on demand, cosleep, etc, and still begin ovulating with regular cycles at 6-9 months postpartum. Boooo!

you mean you got 6 months without cycling. Lucky you. I started cycling 4 weeks after giving birth.

[Rosie_0801]

Here is my other (crude, inappropriate) question.

 

Given how easy it is for two people to enjoy a cup of tea without the tea bag ever entering the pot (thereby avoiding the side effects 9 months later), and given that, statistically, most women aren't brought to boil by dunking the bag, why didn't "creative tea drinking" ever catch on as the main form of tea drinking for people who weren't looking to have a child?

 

Ensuite bathrooms needed to be invented first.