Reddit reviews Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others

>Occasionally, but no. If this were true, then how did the repressive sexual taboos exist for thousands of years in Europe with little variation in specific periods?

Sexual taboos varied notably. There were lots of different polyamorous standards rulers adopted, prostitution was rampant and often controlled by the church, and there was massive variation from period to period, region to region.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sexuality-Medieval-Europe-Doing-Others/dp/0415693896

>Challenging the way the Middle Ages have been treated in general histories of sexuality, Ruth Mazo Karras shows how views at the time were conflicted and complicated; there was no single medieval attitude towards sexuality any more than there is one modern attitude. The well-known lusty priest and the ‘repressed’ penitent have their roles to play, but set here in a wider context these figures take on fascinating new dimensions. Focusing on acceptable marital sexual activity as well as what was seen as transgressive, the chapters cover such topics as chastity, the role of the church, and non-reproductive activity.

>If this were true, our modern sexual society would've existed everywhere nearly universally.

They had notably worse issues than us, and notably wilder sex probably. They were a lot less repressed in many periods.

>Only criminality and rebellion is seen as cool in your culture, also see point above.

And often criminality and rebellion is seen as good.

>Sure, but that doesn't mean they'll succeed.

Violent clashes between protest groups hurt society. As such, if you want to oppress a group you have to weigh it against the violence that will cause.

>This concerns a product that's bought and sold and that was banned and not Stigmitized. I don't see this being universally applicable at all.

There were lots of government and religious efforts to stigmatize drugs.