Two part question. 1) Is it correct to state that government control over individual behaviour has increased over time and 2) If yes, why?
It is my perception, based on my (limited) knowledge of antiquity and (specifically European) history that in the past, individuals had greater personal liberty (for instance, to take drugs or engage in prostitution) than they do today. My perception is that modern governments, including democratic Western governments priding themselves on liberal values, are substantially more controlling over individuals' private behaviour than governments of the past were. Is this perception generally true and if it is, what is the explanation for it?
I think we should make a difference between social and governmental control. While the governmental control of individual behaviour may not have bieen as strict, you can´t forget about the social normas surrounding everyone and everything basicly eveywhere in history. Think of the idea of premarital sex for women, the need to go to church every sunday, the way people dressed and acted in general. These are not things controlled by the government, but by the people around.
As /u/Tauchfischstaebchen points out, we need to distinguish between social and government control - and a major problem with democratic governments is that making that distinction isn't easy (or, arguably, useful).
Perhaps more importantly, changes in policy don't directly determine people's "net" liberty. For all the modern paternalistic policies that limit liberty, there are both socio-economic factors and government policies that increase liberty. Those paternalistic policies also vary wildly in how vigilantly they're enforced, both over space and time.
If we have women's suffrage, the advent of the washing machine, and racial segregation at the same time, how liberal is that society? More or less than before? Is the government an illiberal influence, or a liberal one, or both?
What's "liberal" anyway? Is legal slavery a reflection of government control over behaviour? Abolition of slavery increases the liberty of slaves, at the expense of the liberty of slave owners - is that a net gain or loss in liberty? Is the net gain or loss in liberty even a meaningful or useful thing to consider?
Ultimately, answering your question requires quantifying different sorts of liberty and comparing them - so any answer would be conjecture based on subjective value judgments. For example, I would answer "no" based on the abolition of conscription (at least if we're talking about the last century or so).