I mean let’s look at the data suggesting “no”:
spoiler
no contraceptiveless effective contraceptives means greater chance of pregnancy, so sex is less common from the get-go- no mass-produced lubes or oils if you’re into that, or benefit from it.
- Lower Quality beds, and no beds if you go back far enough
- Oh yeah, gay sex was literally illegal for most of recorded history.
- patriarchy and presumably low discussion about how to improve sex for all participating parties.
- Most people slept in the same room as their children a long time ago, so they would presumably do-the-nasty while their children were present and could hear/see.
But, arguments in favour of ‘yes’?
spoiler
- Kids had to work and could wander around more in villages, meaning husband and wife might be able to go at it during the day time in an unoccupied house (some people get to achieve this today with intricate planning)
- that gritty period-drama vibe makes all things sexier.
- Use of words like “ravish”
- uh-oh, guess I’m out of stuff!
What do you all think?
There are a few flaws with your assumptions about historical life. The period drama is a pretty good pun, if intended.
Mainly the children having to work elsewhere is pretty tied to the industrial age. Most likely they did work quite close to house. And the house would be not very much more than a single room where dinner was made, housework was done and sleeping for all family members. This wasn’t very conductive for sexy times.
But situations varied so widely that it’s very hard to generalize.
But biologically not very much has changed. Life uhh finds a way. The sexual act would be pretty similar and enjoyable. If you don’t know about new inventions or scientific insights you wouldn’t really miss them.
Our understanding of hygiëne has made us a overly scared of microbes. People have been doing mostly fine with only practical understanding. Napoleon would instruct his lover not to bathe a he found her smell arousing, maybe us showering daily has taken something away.