I was looking into the history of tampons (I started thinking, "how the fuck did women exist before plastics?) and i found very interesting things about wooden sticks in Egypt padded with cotton, free bleeding hasn't been a thing.
I'm a man who just thinks about shit for too long.
The book and article I found made an explicit note that it wasn't really that much of a problem because, if you could get a period, you were more than likely pregnant anyway. So that got me thinking, if the vast majority of women were constantly pregnant, then... how is raping a city after a siege very effective?
Say 20% of the population isn't pregnant, between miscarriage, complications, disease, and the intentional killing of rape babies, wouldn't... it not impact the gene pool very much?
I'm talking about pre-industrial societies mostly.
We have, using the moderator discretion powers set out here, removed this question because we feel it is in bad taste. AskHistorians is a curated space, and the tone of the subreddit - and ensuring it remains a welcoming place for all participants - is very important to us. Questions phrased in this way tend to disproportionately attract discussion which has no place on our forum.
We recognise that this was likely unintentional on your part, and that you had no desire to cause offence with your question. We also recognise that the question may well be on a subject of legitimate historical enquiry. We are not trying to discourage you from asking questions, but to reflect on how you might phrase it in a way that encourages healthy discourse on our subreddit. If it's not clear to you how to do this - or you aren't sure what the issue is in the first place - we strongly encourage you to contact us via modmail to discuss it.