Who has more fun: 21st century blondes or 17th century blondes? Clearly the answer is brunettes. Regardless, let's compare the eras a bit.
In the 1600s, women were considered to be naturally lusty, and a healthy woman required a certain amount of sex to be healthy. And that works out well, if all women are to be generalized as being a certain level of slutty. In the 21st century there are a lot of diverse sexual practices, but many of them elicit a disapproving response and are kept to a taboo status.
The scorn of your 17th-century neighbor was hard to induce and fairly easy to escape: Premarital cuddling up to third base was relatively acceptable and commonplace, and premarital intercourse was excusable provided there was a spoken agreement of a marriage. Clearly this "promise" nonsense isn't a prerequisite for anything anymore, and the limits of sexual encounters are a strictly individual matter.
Another perk is that it was believed that mutual pleasure was necessary for conception. Fifteen seconds and passing out wasn't acceptable back then, but 400 years later we just shrug and reach for a vibrator. Seems like those 17th-century women had equality on their side - sure, there wasn't as much variety in sexual positions and the occupations and social roles were pretty shabby, but at least there was a standard of sexual prowess men had to uphold.
If a 17th-century man didn't want to be mocked at the tavern, he had to do a decent job with the weaver's daughter. If a 21st-century man doesn't want to be mocked at the bar, all he has to do is get off. What we need here is a stronger sense of community watch - voyeurism, and lots of it.
It was believed that conception was a result of mutual contribution of "seed," which could only be released when both partners were feeling sexual pleasure. The baby's gender was also more egalitarian in determination: Genetics tell us that it's all the man's fault, but in the 17th century, whoever's "seed" was stronger determined the baby's gender. However, there were two downsides to this view of mutual sexual pleasure as essential.
Another problem with pleasure being a prerequisite of conception was that it was nearly impossible for a woman to file a paternity suit. That is, it was much harder to convict a man of rape, since if she got pregnant, she must have enjoyed it and that, to their minds, ruled out rape. While pre-marital sex was fairly liberally accepted, extra-marital sex was not.
The assumption that women needed sexual encounters to be healthy did not excuse cuckolding, and adultery was considered a grave crime indeed. Thankfully 21st-century views are a lot less morally restricting.
In America, adultery laws are delegated to the states, which has resulted in many lax or non-existent laws. Most states simply include adultery as grounds for divorce and an impact on alimony and custody issues.
In the spectrum of womanly recognition, the highest echelon was being a reproducing married woman. That is, having legitimate sex was the best and most respected profession available.
I'm all for equality, but was that such a bad idea? Now we have all this fancy equality talk, and women are expected to achieve just as lofty and difficult careers as men. Being a doctor is great, but being a trophy wife seems pretty nice too.
I'm going to continue to assert that brunettes have more fun and that, for the sake of sex in the shower, the 21st century wins by a nose.
