completely serious question here.
how did men hide erections in 18/17th century trousers/pants? or, for that matter, stockings?
>in4 no need to hide
i'd prefer if my baron/king didn't see that i fancied his baroness/queen and lob off my knob.
they didn't
>>505579
not going to lie, looks like he stuffed it
>>505555
By ejaculating and thus triggering their refractory period where no erection is possible.
Good thing rape was socially acceptable back then.
>>505579
This.
>>505595
Rape has never been socially acceptable.
>>506183
Pretty sure men in japan for a very long time could rape women, and the woman would be ridiculed.
Acceptable enough
>>506274
Japan =/= entire world
There's English medieval laws against rape. Rape was generally only socially acceptable during war, unless you have a meme definition of rape
>>506282
Except for, you know, marital rape. Or is that one of those meme definitions?
>>505595
>>506183
>>506282
>>506477
i think that the anon who first mentioned rape meant to say was, in a not so retarded manner, that men could have an easier getting sex out of a woman back then than today, in ways that would be considered rape by modern judicial and social definitions.
which is still a fucking stupid thing to say, since it's easier to get sex these days (without violence) than it ever was, as attitudes relationships and sex has slowly but surely liberalized.
>>506695
>which is still a fucking stupid thing to say, since it's easier to get sex these days (without violence) than it ever was, as attitudes relationships and sex has slowly but surely liberalized.
no, it is easier to get sex without legal repercussions if you use condoms and you are nor poor nor ugly.
>>506753
i'm not sure what you're trying to say, aren't you basically agreeing with me?
>>506477
What? "Marital rape" is not a definition of rape, it's just a form of rape specified.
If you think that having sex with a man in an arranged marriage, which was not a marriage of love = rape, then yes: a meme definition.
>>506940
Marital rape means that in the olden days, it was common for man to have his way with his wife against her will, and it was seen ok (or it wouldn't have been taken seriously, after all they were married). Which nowadays is considered full on rape.
>>506969
I don't think there are any specific statistics about men taking women against their will within marriage. And besides, most peasant women and men both realized that children were essential as workforce and retirement.
Nobility is a different case of course, but they were a minority.
>>507073
> I don't think there are any specific statistics about men taking women against their will within marriage.
For obvious reason it's hard to gather statistics around, doesn't mean it didn't happen or was looked down upon.
