Returning to chirpy's original post, the big difference between 'the past' (a big shapeless all-defining thing?) and today is that people were at pains to maintain a front that conformed to certain principles. I'm not siding with that being right or wrong. But within that framework, women and men who were seen to have been promiscuous were denounced. The likes of Nell Gwynne were OK while their 'protector' was about, but Charles II knew she'd get very little change once he'd passed away.
Nowadays our all-controlling media positively applaud women and men who splurge every detail of their amorality, addictions and selfishness across the airways, while at the same time encouraging consumers to hate women in particular - but not solely women - for their actions.
But in essence this thread is a discussion of how we ought to behave, and who are the arbiters of that. As a society we are letting the media barons do this, so they constantly manufacture and destroy a parade of strumpets, trulls, dandies and macaronis (arcane words are seldom blocked), and we like fools buy their products and our children copy the apparently successful behaviour.
The filthy talk indulged in by the Housemates as described by chirpy went on and was well exceeded in the stews and bordellos of the past - but it was not paraded before the public and you had to go to it to get it if you wanted it.
And as I pointed out earlier, now we have a pair of adulterers as heirs to the throne and we are trained to ignore the betrayal they conspired in to get what they wanted.
It is very sad to think that the outcome of the long struggle for women's equality has been the normalising of behaviour that may make one woman rich and 'respectable', or another woman rich and notorious, but makes most women into commodities.