I really just was curious to know how whores in older times avoided getting pregnant… but it turned into a longer read. Here are some excerpts. Enjoy :)<\/p>\n
–<\/p>\n
http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/History_of_condoms<\/a><\/p>\n The <\/span>history of condoms<\/strong><\/span> goes back at least several centuries, and perhaps beyond. For most of their history, condoms<\/a> have been used both as a method of birth control<\/a>, and as a protective measure against sexually transmitted diseases<\/a>. Condoms have been made from a variety of materials; prior to the 19th century, chemically treated linen and animal tissue (intestine or bladder) are the best documented varieties. Rubber condoms gained popularity in the mid-19th century, and in the early 20th century major advances were made in manufacturing techniques. Prior to the introduction of the combined oral contraceptive pill<\/a>, condoms were the most popular birth control method in the Western world. In the second half of the 20th century, the low cost of condoms contributed to their importance in family planning<\/a> programs throughout the developing world. Condoms have also become increasingly important in efforts to fight the AIDS pandemic<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a> Distribution of condoms in the United States was limited by passage of the Comstock laws<\/a>, which included a federal act banning the mailing of contraceptive information (passed in 1873) as well as State laws that banned the manufacture and sale of condoms in thirty states.[1]<\/a>:144,193 In Ireland<\/a> the 1889 Indecent Advertisements Act made it illegal to advertise condoms, although their manufacture and sale remained legal.[1]<\/a>:163-4,168 Contraceptives were illegal in 19th century Italy and Germany, but condoms were allowed for disease prevention.[1]<\/a>:169-70 Despite legal obstacles, condoms continued to be readily available in both Europe and America, widely advertised under euphemisms such as <\/span>male shield<\/em><\/span> and <\/span>rubber good<\/em><\/span>.[1]<\/a>:146-7 In late 19th century England, condoms were known as “a little something for the weekend”.[1]<\/a>:165 Only in the Republic of Ireland<\/a> were condoms effectively outlawed. There, their sale and manufacture remained illegal until the 1970s.[1]<\/a>:171<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a> In the 1960s and 1970s quality regulations tightened,[1]<\/a>:267,285 and legal barriers to condom use were removed. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case <\/span>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em><\/span><\/a> struck down one of the remaining Comstock laws<\/a>, the bans of contraception in Connecticut and Massachusetts. France repealed its anti-birth control laws in 1967. Similar laws in Italy were declared unconstitutional in 1971. Captain Beate Uhse<\/a> in Germany founded a birth control business, and fought a series of legal battles continue her sales.[1]<\/a>:276-9 In Ireland, legal condom sales (only to people over 18, and only in clinics and pharmacies) were allowed for the first time in 1978. (All restrictions on Irish condom sales were lifted in 1993.)[1]<\/a>:329-30<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a> The first <\/span>New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/a> story on acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS<\/a>) was published on July 3, 1981.[1]<\/a>:294 In 1982 it was first suggested that the disease was sexually transmitted.[10]<\/a> In response to these findings, and to fight the spread of AIDS, the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop<\/a> supported condom promotion programs. However, President Ronald Reagan<\/a> preferred an approach of concentrating only on abstinence programs. Some opponents of condom programs stated that AIDS was a disease of homosexuals and illicit drug users, who were just getting what they deserved. In 1990 North Carolina senator Jesse Helms<\/a> argued that the best way to fight AIDS would be to enforce state sodomy laws.[1]<\/a>:296-7<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/p>\n –<\/p>\n Their claims about AIDS and homosexuals reminds me of<\/span><\/p>\n http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gay-related_immune_deficiency<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a> Gay-related immune deficiency<\/strong><\/span> (<\/span>GRID<\/strong><\/span>) (sometimes informally called the <\/span>gay plague<\/strong><\/span>) was the 1982 name first proposed to describe an “unexpected cluster of cases”[1]<\/a> of what is now known as AIDS<\/a>,[2]<\/a> after public health scientists noticed clusters of Kaposi’s sarcoma<\/a> and pneumocystis pneumonia<\/a> among gay<\/a> males in Southern California<\/a> and New York City<\/a>.[1]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Contraception#History<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a> Birth control<\/strong><\/span>, <\/span>contraception<\/strong><\/span>, <\/span>family planning<\/strong><\/span> or <\/span>fertility control<\/strong><\/span>[1]<\/a> refers to the usage of methods or devices intended to control the incidence of a pregnancy.[2]<\/a>[3]<\/a> Some include the termination of pregnancy<\/a> in the definition.[4]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a> There are a number of ways that a female can engage in sexual activity while reducing or otherwise controlling the risk of becoming pregnant. Available contraception methods include barrier methods<\/a>, such as condoms<\/a> and diaphragms<\/a>; hormonal contraception<\/a> including oral pills, patches and vaginal rings, injectable contraceptives<\/a>, and intrauterine devices<\/a>.[5]<\/a> Birth control options shortly after sex includes emergency contraceptives<\/a>.[6]<\/a> Permanent methods include sterilization<\/a>. Some people regard abstinence as a contraception method as well as engaging in sexual activity which does not involve penile-vaginal penetration.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a> While methods of birth control have been used since ancient times, effective and safe methods only become avaliable in the 20th century.[5]<\/a> For some people, birth control involves moral issues, and many countries limit access to contraception due to the moral and political issues involved.[5]<\/a> Some argue, for example, that the availability of contraception increases the level of sexual activity within society.<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a> In modern Europe<\/a>, knowledge of herbal abortifacients and contraceptives to regulate fertility has largely been lost.[41]<\/a>Historian John M. Riddle<\/a> found that this remarkable loss of basic knowledge can be attributed to attempts of the early modern European states to “repopulate” Europe after dramatic losses following the plague epidemics that started in 1348.[41]<\/a> According to Riddle, one of the policies implemented by the church and supported by feudal lords to destroy the knowledge of birth control included the initiation of witch hunts<\/a> againstmidwives<\/a>, who had knowledge of herbal abortifacients and contraceptives.[41]<\/a>[42]<\/a>[43]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a> On December 5, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII issued the <\/span>Summis desiderantes affectibus<\/em><\/span><\/a>, a papal bull in which he recognized the existence of witches and gave full papal approval for the Inquisition<\/a> to proceed “correcting, imprisoning, punishing and chastising” witches “according to their deserts.” In the bull, which is sometimes referred to as the “Witch-Bull of 1484”, the witches were explicitly accused of having “slain infants yet in the mother’s womb” (abortion) and of “hindering men from performing the sexual act and women from conceiving” (contraception).[44]<\/a> Famous texts that served to guide the witch hunt and instruct magistrates on how to find and convict so-called “witches” include the <\/span>Malleus Maleficarum<\/em><\/span><\/a>, and Jean Bodin<\/a>‘s <\/span>De la demonomanie des sorciers<\/em><\/span>.[45]<\/a> The Malleus Maleficarum was written by the priest J. Sprenger<\/a> (born in Rheinfelden<\/a>, today Switzerland), who was appointed by Pope Innocent VIII as the General Inquisitor for Germany around 1475, and H. Institoris<\/a>, who at the time was inquisitor for Tyrol, Salzburg, Bohemia and Moravia. The authors accused witches, among other things, of infanticide<\/a> and having the power to steal men’s penises.[46]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>Barrier methods such as the condom<\/a> have been around much longer, but were seen primarily as a means of preventingsexually transmitted diseases<\/a>, not pregnancy. Casanova<\/a> in the 18th century was one of the first reported using “assurance caps” to prevent impregnating his mistresses.[47]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Comstock_laws<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>The <\/span>Comstock Act<\/strong><\/span>, 17\u00a0Stat.<\/a>\u00a0598<\/a>, enacted March 3, 1873, was a United States federal law<\/a> which amended the Post Office Act<\/a>[1]<\/a> and made it illegal to send any “obscene, lewd, and\/or lascivious” materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes. Twenty-four states passed similar prohibitions on materials distributed within the states.[2]<\/a> These state and federal restrictions are collectively known as the <\/span>Comstock laws<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n The Comstock Laws were variously case tested, but courts struggled to establish definitive thinking about the laws. One of the most notable applications of Comstock was Roth v. United States<\/a>, in which the Supreme Court affirmed Comstock, but set limits on what could be considered obscene. This landmark case represented one of the first notable revisions since the Hicklin test<\/a>, and the evolving nature of the laws on which Comstock was conceived.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>The sale and distribution of obscene materials had been prohibited prior to Comstock in most American states since the early 19th century, and by federal law since 1873. Federal anti-obscenity laws are currently still in effect and enforced,[3]<\/a>[4]<\/a> though the definition of obscenity has changed much (now expressed in the Miller Test<\/a>) and extensive debates on what is obscene continue.<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>The Comstock laws banned distribution of sex education<\/a> information, based on the premise that it was obscene and led to promiscuous behavior[6]<\/a> Mary Ware Dennett<\/a> was fined $300 in 1928, for distributing a pamphlet containing sex education material. The American Civil Liberties Union<\/a> (ACLU), led by Morris Ernst, appealed her conviction and won a reversal, in which judge Learned Hand<\/a> ruled that the pamphlet’s main purpose was to “promote understanding”.[6]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>Publications addressing homosexuality<\/a> were automatically deemed obscene under the Comstock Act until 1958.[7]<\/a> In One, Inc. v. Olesen<\/a>, as a follow-on to Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court granted free press rights around homosexuality.<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a> In 1915, architect William Sanger was charged under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information.[10]<\/a> In 1918, his wife Margaret Sanger<\/a> was similarly charged. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[11]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>The prohibition of devices advertised for the explicit purpose of birth control<\/a> was not overturned for another eighteen years. During World War I, U.S. Servicemen were the only members of the Allied forces sent overseas without condoms which led to more widespread STDs among U.S. troops. In 1932, Sanger arranged for a shipment of diaphragms<\/a> to be mailed from Japan to a sympathetic doctor in New York City. When U.S. customs confiscated the package as illegal contraceptive devices, Sanger helped file a lawsuit. In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in <\/span>United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries<\/em><\/span><\/a> that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[11]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case <\/span>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em><\/span><\/a> struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut<\/a> and Massachusetts<\/a>. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. Eisenstadt v. Baird<\/a> (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well.<\/span><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Miller_Test<\/a><\/p>\n <\/a>The <\/span>Miller test<\/strong><\/span> (also called the <\/span>Three Prong Obscenity Test<\/strong><\/span>[1]<\/a>), is the United States Supreme Court<\/a>‘s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene<\/a>, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution<\/a> and can be prohibited.<\/span><\/p>\n …<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case <\/span>Miller v. California<\/em><\/span><\/a>.[2]<\/a> It has three parts:<\/span><\/p>\n The work is considered obscene only<\/em> if all three conditions are satisfied.<\/span><\/p>\n The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to what is reasonable to a person of the United States as a whole. The national reasonable person standard of the third prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.<\/span><\/p>\n For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Nacogdoches, Texas<\/a>, may differ from what offends the average person in Chicago<\/a>. The relevant community, however, is not defined.<\/span><\/p>\n Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the “average” person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test<\/a>, stemming from the English precedent.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>In practice, pornography showing genitalia<\/a> and sexual acts is not <\/span>ipso facto<\/em><\/span><\/a> obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo<\/a>, Utah<\/a>, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah<\/a>, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel<\/a> were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view<\/a> pornographic<\/a> material, accessing far more material than the store was distributing.[4]<\/a>[5]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n –<\/p>\n http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n <\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a> The <\/span>combined oral contraceptive pill<\/strong><\/span> (<\/span>COCP<\/strong><\/span>), often referred to as the <\/span>birth-control pill<\/strong><\/span> or colloquially as “<\/span>the Pill<\/strong><\/span>“, is a birth control method that includes a combination of an estrogen<\/a> (oestrogen<\/a>) and a progestin<\/a> (progestogen<\/a>). When taken by mouth every day, these pills inhibit female fertility. They were first approved for contraceptive use in the United States<\/a> in 1960, and are a very popular form of birth control<\/a>. They are currently used by more than 100 million women worldwide and by almost 12 million women in the United States.[6]<\/a>[7]<\/a> Usage varies widely by country,[8]<\/a> age, education, and marital status: one third of women[9]<\/a> aged 16\u201349 in the United Kingdom<\/a> currently use either the combined pill or a progestogen-only “minipill<\/a>“,[10]<\/a> compared to only 1% of women in Japan<\/a>.[11]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n …<\/p>\n <\/a><\/a>The placebo pills allow the user to take a pill every day; remaining in the daily habit even during the week without hormones. Placebo pills may contain an iron<\/a> supplement,[14]<\/a>[15]<\/a> as iron requirements increase during menstruation.<\/span><\/p>\n Rather clever.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n Main article: Extended cycle combined oral contraceptive pill<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n If the pill formulation is monophasic, it is possible to skip withdrawal bleeding and still remain protected against conception by skipping the placebo pills and starting directly with the next packet. Attempting this with bi- or tri-phasic pill formulations carries an increased risk of breakthrough bleeding<\/a> and may be undesirable. It will not, however, increase the risk of getting pregnant.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>Starting in 2003, women have also been able to use a three-month version of the Pill.[17]<\/a> Similar to the effect of using a constant-dosage formulation and skipping the placebo weeks for three months, Seasonale<\/a> gives the benefit of less frequent periods, at the potential drawback of breakthrough bleeding. Seasonique is another version in which the placebo week every three months is replaced with a week of low-dose estrogen.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>A version of the combined pill has also been packaged to completely eliminate placebo pills and withdrawal bleeds. Marketed as Anya or Lybrel, studies have shown that after seven months, 71% of users no longer had any breakthrough bleeding, the most common side effect of going longer periods of time without breaks from active pills.[18]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n …<\/p>\n\n
<\/a>Less frequent placebos<\/span><\/h3>\n
<\/a>Weight<\/span><\/h3>\n