they\u00a0<\/em>thought about the topic.<\/p>\n[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
EMILY: When we say the words, colonial America and sex, what do you think of?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #1: Nothing. Literally nothing. Like procreation that\u2019s it.<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #2: I don\u2019t really see those two going together.<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #3: I think of like puritans<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #4: We\u2019re still inhabiting this place, but, like I don\u2019t really see them really doing it, because you don\u2019t really think about past generations having sex.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
EMILY: Now that we\u2019ve got our conceptions, let\u2019s dive into what is and isn\u2019t true about American colonial sex.<\/p>\n
One of our perceptions of colonists is that they considered all sexual acts sinful. But this is clearly not the case, as the colonists continued to marry and produce children. In fact, some sexual acts were not only accepted by colonial communities, but considered holy. In order to explore this, let\u2019s distinguish between godly and deviant sex in colonial America.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s start with the godly sex. In Puritan America, marital sex was celebrated by church educators as quote \u201can expression of love and fellowship between husband and wife\u201d end quote. Priests often pointed to biblical passages which supported marital sex and made conjugal sex a central part of their sermons. In fact, sex was considered so important in colonial marriages that a lack of marital sex could lead to legal prosecution. In 1640, James Matock of Boston was excommunicated for having quote \u201cdenied conjugal fellowship unto his wife for the space of two years together\u201d unquote.<\/p>\n
However, there were very practical reasons that marital sex was so revered by early American churches. In the early years of colonial America, populating the colony was a huge issue. Those in power promoted marital sex and painted it as godly in an attempt to raise birth rates.<\/p>\n
Most sexual relationships and acts that took place outside of the marriage bed were considered deviant in colonial America.<\/p>\n
Male homosexual relationships\u2014or instances of sodomy, as they were called\u2014did not lead to children and were thus considered wrong. Officially, a sodomizer would if caught would be castrated, whipped every three months, and imprisoned for life. In some communities, they could even be put to death.<\/p>\n
However, in other communities, men in homosexual relationships could not only escape prosecution but thrive. In New Jersey in the early 18th century, two men were accused of being in a romantic relationship. Even though the resulting scandal lead to one man taking a wife, neither man\u2019s reputations in the community was tarnished in any way. This shows a seeming disconnect between the doctrine of the church and the opinions of the citizens of early America.<\/p>\n
Women in homosexual relationships on the other hand were rarely prosecuted in colonial America. Since only penetrative acts were considered sex, women in sexual relationships were not to puritans really having sex at all.<\/p>\n
Beastiality was considered a big problem and particularly deviant in colonial America. In fact, in the 1640s, bestiality paranoia swept through New England, and many men were accused of having sex with their farm animals. Those who were accused of bestiality often faced a lifetime prison sentence or death. The animal often faced a similar fate, as they would henceforth be considered unclean.<\/p>\n
As shown, there was a clear divide between what was considered good sex and what was considered bad sex in colonial America. As expanding the population was the number one priority of many colonial leaders, any sex that did not do that was considered deviant.<\/p>\n
As you can see, some of our perceptions of early American sexuality are true. Colonists were intolerant of some sexual acts. But they accepted others, and the fact that colonists categorized sexual acts so thoroughly shows that sex was discussed in society, which certainly goes against my preconceptions of early American sexuality.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
ACADIA: Our perception of colonial America is often due to our perception of Puritan communities, and while a lot, but not all, of those perceptions are true, we have to keep in mind that Puritan communities did not represent all of colonial America. In fact, religious communities don\u2019t even represent all of America. A lot of colonists in the southern colonies were coming to America as indentured servants, not because they were seeking religious freedom. This difference in motivation for coming to America caused a lot of variation between these communities, and a lot of variation in their sex lives.<\/p>\n
A big difference between these colonists\u2019 attitudes towards sex was about their attitude towards pre-marital sex. While pre-marital sex occurred sometimes in New England, it was actually pretty common in the Chesapeake region due to the fact that there was a 4 to 1 male to female sex ratio and these colonists weren\u2019t even allowed to get married until they became free. \u00a0So… celibacy really wasn\u2019t their top priority. Premarital sex culture in the Chesapeake was so strong that up to 1\/3 of brides in the Chesapeake region were pregnant. What\u2019s more is that women didn\u2019t have to worry about being pure or virgins because, like I said, there was a 4:1 ratio, so honestly anybody could make good wife material. If you were a woman with multiple bastard children, you were definitely still an eligible bachelorette in the Chesapeake region.<\/p>\n
Chesapeake and New England did share some attitudes towards sex, but most of these attitudes were similar in law more than they were in practice. Laws in both regions carried harsh punishments for those who were sexually deviant, however New England communities were much more likely to uphold those laws. New England communities monitored each other\u2019s sexual crimes way more extensively, and the punishments for these crimes were much more intense, including some instances of the death penalty. This is because some religious communities believed that one individual\u2019s sin could harm the entire community. While there is definitely some truth to the idea that colonists were prudish about their sex lives, they definitely weren\u2019t quiet about it. It wasn\u2019t as taboo as we think it was. New England communities were obsessed with talking about and monitoring each other\u2019s sex lives.<\/p>\n
Another difference is that homes in New England were much closer together than in the agricultural Chesapeake, which meant it was a lot easier for people to spy on their neighbors\u2019 sex lives. In the Chesapeake, however, farmland spread these houses apart, which made it easier for people to find hiding spots for more intimate moments.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
EMILY: How accepted do you think premarital sex was in colonial America?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #1: Not very socially acceptable.<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #2: Ahh, bad.<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #3: I think it was probably pretty common, but still a taboo thing that people would work to cover up. That would be my guest.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
EMILY: As these interviews show, many modern Americans believe that pre-marital sex was taboo in Colonial America. But as we\u2019ll soon see, sex between unmarried couples was more common than you\u2019d think. But before we can talk about pre-marital sex, we need to talk about how couples in early America became couples. How did young colonists decide who they were going to marry? One might expect that most colonial marriages were arranged between families, but the evidence does not support this idea. In fact, there was a thriving \u201cdating culture\u201d in colonial America, especially in the 18th century.<\/p>\n
One way that teenagers in colonial America met romantic partners was through events called junkets or frolicks. These were basically group dates with many young adults, that took place late at night and could involve anything from quilting to sledding. For the most part, these practices were accepted by parents and the community.<\/p>\n
One thing that was most shocking to learn about colonists, and this is actually something we\u2019ve already talked about, was that pre-marital sex wasn\u2019t as taboo you would think it was. Of course, if the pre-marital sex ended in a bastard child being born, it could ruin the woman and her child. This happened in 1664 when indentured servant Anne Orthwood had a child with the wealthy and single John Kendall of Norfolk, Virginia. The resulting scandal not only ruined Anne\u2019s reputation, but also that of her child.<\/p>\n
However, if the couple got married, it was a completely different story. As long as the pregnant woman married the father and repented, the couple would still be accepted by society. Furthermore, if the couple was already engaged, many community members considered it fine for them to have premarital sex, although this mindset was heavily discouraged by the church.<\/p>\n
In fact, colonial parents sometimes even encouraged unmarried young adults to sleep together under their roof. This was part of a widespread practice known as bundling, where couples were encouraged to sleep in the same bed. However, as shocking as this seems to our preconceived notions of colonists, there was a practical reason for it. As historian Richard Godbeer notes, quote \u201cIf the the couple did conceive, the parents would know who was responsible and could pressure the father to marry or at least support the mother unquote.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, bundling did not only occur between committed partners. In his 1780 diary, the young New Hampshire farmer Abner Sanger gives an account of his friend Zadock Dodge\u2019s one night affair with Hephzibah Crossfield, complaining that the next day Dodge was quote \u201covercome with the fatigue of the last night with Hephzibah\u201d unquote. Zadock and Hephzibah never married and are never again coupled together in Sanger\u2019s diary. This displays that there may have even been a casual sex culture in parts colonial America.<\/p>\n
All in all, the colonial attitudes towards courtship are very different from what I\u2019d expected, and colonists were certainly less prudish and more open towards unmarried couples exploring their sexuality than I\u2019d thought.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
ACADIA: If you had to guess when American society generally understood that females had pleasure during sex, but not only that but that pleasure stemmed from the clitoris, when would you guess that would be?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #1: I don\u2019t know, 2000?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #2: The 80s.<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #3: I don\u2019t know, the 80s?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #4: Oh, I would say that we still haven\u2019t discovered that.<\/p>\n
ACADIA: How would you react if I told you that in colonial America, this was a very understood fact,\u00a0 but not only that, female pleasure during sex was seen as essential?<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #2: I would be\u2026I am surprised to learn that, if that\u2019s true.<\/p>\n
ACADIA: It is true!<\/p>\n
GRINNELL STUDENT #2: Ok, well I\u2019m surprised to learn that.<\/p>\n
ACADIA: Like many of the people I interviewed, when I started this research I too thought that public and common conceptions of female pleasure, or really sexual pleasure in general, were a fairly recent phenomenon. I definitely did not imagine the extent to which Colonists acknowledged sexual pleasure. First of all, colonists acknowledged this pleasure at a medical level. In Jane Sharpe\u2019s midwife\u2019s book, the author explicitly discusses the clitoris and its relationship to pleasure. Another text wrote that the clitoris is the organ quote \u201cwhich makes women lustful and take delight in copulation\u201d unquote and that without it they quote \u201cwould have no desire nor delight nor would they ever conceive\u201d unquote. These early medical texts stressed not just sexual pleasure, but its necessity <\/em>for conception and overall good health.<\/p>\nOur conceptions about sexual pleasure in colonial America stem from our belief that religious attitudes towards sex and pleasure are in opposition to each other, but that is far from the case. Not only was pleasure acknowledged in colonial America, it was seen as a necessity both biologically and religiously. Lack of pleasure in a sexual relationship was grounds for divorce in some areas. Certain religious communities believed that marital sex was a way to channel human\u2019s inherent lust into a religiously acceptable relationship. They also believed that pleasure for both <\/em>partners was absolutely essential for a quality marital relationship and was a gift from God for reproducing. Even Puritans, who have a reputation for being the most prudish and uptight, believed that although sex within a marriage is a duty it quote \u201cmust be performed with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.\u201d<\/p>\nThus, religious communities framed sexual pleasure, as long as it was within a marital context of course, as a religious experience rather than placing the two in opposition with each other. While many couples did view their sex as Godly due to reproduction, it is important to note that sex was common even while pregnant, so reproduction was not the only reason these couples were having sex.<\/p>\n
Couples in Colonial America were very cognisant of pleasurable sex. In a love letter from one couple, a colonial woman forgives her husband for ejaculating too quickly, as she understands that he had not had sex for a while and so the experience was particularly pleasurable. A four year old child in another part of colonial America told her servant that she had seen a man in bed with her mom who had told her to quote \u201clay up higher.\u201d This example of a dialogue during sex shows that the couple was communicating about sexual positions to ensure comfort and pleasure.<\/p>\n
Breastfeeding often caused tension in the household because colonial medical beliefs dictated that a woman must remain celibate while breastfeeding in order to preserve the quality of the milk. This belief was partially the reason that there were demands for wet nurses; if someone else was nursing your child then there was no need for you to remain celibate. For women who did breastfeed, weaning was a particularly stressful time because the stress of weaning was combined with the sexual tension from being so close to finally being able to have sex again.<\/p>\n
Overall, the conception that sex in colonial America was always reproductive or always sinful is just not true. Sex in colonial America was often pleasurable, and everyone acknowledged this.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
EMILY: In fact, many of our conceptions of Colonial Americans\u2019 sexualities are incorrect. We hope you enjoyed learning about the sex lives of these colonists as much as we enjoyed researching it. We were certainly surprised by what we discovered. Colonists did not only enjoy and discuss sex, they almost seemed obsessed with it. Thank you for joining us for this episode of History: with Acadia and Emily.<\/p>\n
[MUSIC]<\/p>\n
<\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What do you think of when you hear the words sex and colonial America? There\u2019s a big chance that you do not think of anything, or that you think sex was taboo and only used for reproduction. We all have preconceived notions of a prudish colonial America, shaped by what we learn about the beliefs… Read more Puritans, Pilgrims, and Plantation Owners Doing the Dirty: A Study of Sex in Colonial America<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-116","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=116"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":163,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116\/revisions\/163"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lewiscar.sites.grinnell.edu\/SexInAmericanHistory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}