• ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    While not every player is not privy to the nightmare of every person in their game becoming with child, those who have the bug are finding a large number of Sims randomly marked as pregnant.

    Who the fuck wrote this?

    Once a character is pregnant, they can’t Woo-Hoo anymore,

    Never pegged The Sims for being so Puritain.

    • dalekcaan@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      There are a lot of euphemisms in The Sims so they can keep their T rating, with sex being called woo-hoo probably being the biggest one. The other big one I can think of is that alcohol is referred to as “Juice”

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I don’t think the Puritans had any issue with pregnant people having sex.

      • ch00f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I assumed they were generally against the concept of sex not strictly for the purpose of reproduction.

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          18 hours ago

          https://www.bostonmagazine.com/arts-entertainment/2016/10/18/puritans-and-sex-myth/

          Debunking the Myth Surrounding Puritans and Sex

          The Puritans weren’t prudish. In fact, they were passionate.

          From the beginning, Puritans maintained sexual intercourse was necessary for procreation, but also asserted sex was an important way for couples to bond in a loving relationship.

          “They talk about the duty to desire, that you’re supposed to engage in intercourse with your married partner and that this is good,” says Bremer. “There will actually be some people in early New England who are censured by the church because they have deprived their married partner of sex for three months or more and this is seen as bad.”

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            “There will actually be some people in early New England who are censured by the church because they have deprived their married partner of sex for three months or more and this is seen as bad.”

            Bet I can guess the gender of the people who were censured…

            • tal@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              I’m assuming that you’re guessing “female”?

              https://sexualityandthecity.com/2016/11/26/when-women-wanted-sex-much-more-than-men/

              In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the Sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years.

              Looking at other sources, the expulsion was in 1640.