lulu wrote:bcspace wrote:You don't honestly believe an 18th century horn dog would be able to have so much sex without leaving a trail of children do you? Your only answer so far has been and will be speculation and innuendo.
Did you mean 19th?
Abortion was available.
Withdrawal was available.
By 1838 condoms made from rubber (who'd have thought) were available.
By 1838 rubber diaphrams were available.
Reusable condoms were available well before the 19th century: see for instance the references in James Boswell's diary:
"Tuesday 10 May 1763
At the bottom of the Haymarket I picked up a strong, jolly young damsel, and taking her under the arm I conducted her to Westminster Bridge, and then in armour complete did I engage her upon this noble edifice. The whim of doing it there with the Thames rolling below us amused me much."
The idea that sex has to mean the inevitable begetting of children is only self-evident to those who have a lack of historical knowledge of the topic.
And I really, really cannot see why Mormons today would want to deny what the CoJCoLDS made great efforts to prove by affidavits of the women concerned given in the Temple Lot Case: that contrary to the contentions of the "Reorganised" Mormons, Smith had sex with his plural wives.
If he was married to them, why would he have not had sex with these women?