This article seems to be missing important context - prior to the mid 20th century sex had profound implications - it resulted in more babies, STDs (all diseases, really) which were much more threatening and the risks to the womans health in the event of pregnancy and/or abortions must have been a major concern. The workarounds to that were all terrible. And there was nothing in the way of social safety nets and not a lot of productive work for single mothers as I understand it.
It doesn't make sense to look at pre-1950s attitudes to sex as a religious phenomenon - or if it does it has to be acknowledged that religion wasn't working with the world we've built for ourselves today. There were real practical concerns that have only recently been worked around. It does seem fair to trace religious traditions on the subject but that really isn't the elephant in the room; sex had to be looked at through a different lens 100 years ago.
It doesn't make sense to look at pre-1950s attitudes to sex as a religious phenomenon - or if it does it has to be acknowledged that religion wasn't working with the world we've built for ourselves today. There were real practical concerns that have only recently been worked around. It does seem fair to trace religious traditions on the subject but that really isn't the elephant in the room; sex had to be looked at through a different lens 100 years ago.