The prudery around TALKING about the subject would come later, mostly.
It certainly hadn't come by the 18th century. It's hilarious and kind of a trip to read prefaces written by 19th and early 20th century editors of 18th century texts: they either defend their decision to bowdlerize their text as sheer decency demands, or they defend both their decision not to bowdlerize as well as their subjects' respectability. "She was totally a lady! Ladies could talk about these things in those days without being seen as coarse! It was just a less refined age." You can see these editors reaching for their smelling salts.
And not just sex, but bodies in general (menstruation, sweating, bowel movements), as well as men being over-the-top emotional. "He was extremely masculine!" protests the poor editor. "It was just the fashion to read sad poetry and cry all the time." Things that we as a society still haven't gotten to the point of being to do and talk about as openly as they did all the way up to the 18th century, but we've at least come far enough that editors don't feel the need to be so dramatic in their efforts to convince their readers that this is not a reason not to read whatever it was they just edited.
Of course, the "It was the times!" protest continues to apply to "He was extremely het! Heterosexual men just professed undying devotion to each other in those days" to this day. The problem, of course, is that it's true: 18th century correspondents did write elaborate phrases of devotion to each other with no more genuine emotion than us writing "Dear Hiring Manager" today (the anonymous hiring manager not being especially dear to you), but also many of them were extremely gay and those were totally love letters. And there was also a whole lot more socially acceptable middle ground allowing things like "romantic friendship" to develop and be expressed comfortably.
All of which makes it easy to whitewash all passionate declarations of love as totally platonic if you're so inclined, and difficult to sort out who actually was attracted to whom even if you're looking for it.
no subject
It certainly hadn't come by the 18th century. It's hilarious and kind of a trip to read prefaces written by 19th and early 20th century editors of 18th century texts: they either defend their decision to bowdlerize their text as sheer decency demands, or they defend both their decision not to bowdlerize as well as their subjects' respectability. "She was totally a lady! Ladies could talk about these things in those days without being seen as coarse! It was just a less refined age." You can see these editors reaching for their smelling salts.
And not just sex, but bodies in general (menstruation, sweating, bowel movements), as well as men being over-the-top emotional. "He was extremely masculine!" protests the poor editor. "It was just the fashion to read sad poetry and cry all the time." Things that we as a society still haven't gotten to the point of being to do and talk about as openly as they did all the way up to the 18th century, but we've at least come far enough that editors don't feel the need to be so dramatic in their efforts to convince their readers that this is not a reason not to read whatever it was they just edited.
Of course, the "It was the times!" protest continues to apply to "He was extremely het! Heterosexual men just professed undying devotion to each other in those days" to this day. The problem, of course, is that it's true: 18th century correspondents did write elaborate phrases of devotion to each other with no more genuine emotion than us writing "Dear Hiring Manager" today (the anonymous hiring manager not being especially dear to you), but also many of them were extremely gay and those were totally love letters. And there was also a whole lot more socially acceptable middle ground allowing things like "romantic friendship" to develop and be expressed comfortably.
All of which makes it easy to whitewash all passionate declarations of love as totally platonic if you're so inclined, and difficult to sort out who actually was attracted to whom even if you're looking for it.