Not very. For most of Western Europe's history, women did not have a great deal of choice in their lives. If they were the oldest female, their job was to get married (for social alliance) and make babies. Any other daughters were 'spares', who may or may not have likewise been married for the family's social connections, or, if they lacked funds, shoved into convents.
Women were also shoved into convents when they were 'put aside'--when their husband got rid of them so they could replace them with a younger/prettier woman.
No one had a great deal of say in their life path, but especially women.
Keep in mind, of course, that our notions of 'sexuality' and cathexis choice are very new--barely over 100 years old. Even the Renaissance didn't worry themselves, much less IDENTIFY themselves, as 'straight' or 'gay'. These terms would seem ridiculous. Many people could enjoy same-sex liaisons, even while in marriages--as there was no chance of pregnancy, they were simply 'invisible', and thus free to be exercised. Sometimes invisibility equals liberty.
no subject
Women were also shoved into convents when they were 'put aside'--when their husband got rid of them so they could replace them with a younger/prettier woman.
No one had a great deal of say in their life path, but especially women.
Keep in mind, of course, that our notions of 'sexuality' and cathexis choice are very new--barely over 100 years old. Even the Renaissance didn't worry themselves, much less IDENTIFY themselves, as 'straight' or 'gay'. These terms would seem ridiculous. Many people could enjoy same-sex liaisons, even while in marriages--as there was no chance of pregnancy, they were simply 'invisible', and thus free to be exercised. Sometimes invisibility equals liberty.