Port is a fortified wine so it is heavier in alcohol than regular wine. The flavor depends a lot on the type (tawny, ruby, LBV, etc) but I find them all to be very fruity, with ruby tending towards berry and cherry notes.
They are dessert wines, so they range from sweet to very sweet.
Port is served in tiny glasses so if you try it and dislike it you won’t be wasting much. 
As I pointed out in post #15, however:
Also, everyone poops.
All scatalogical pokes aside, I have a real question by way of follow-up to the O.P.
Could this have developed not so much because ladies also use the rest room, but because ladies who were dressed formally simply could not use the rest room alone? The heavy dresses and many layers of clothing, etc? I’m bring quite serious here. Have no idea, but is that possibly the source of the tradition?
I think it’s highly unlikely that the tradition of ladies withdrawing to the drawing-room after dinner, while men consumed tobacco and (stronger) alcohol products either in the dining room or elsewhere, was really instituted to allow the ladies to go take a leak or a dump, either individually or in groups.
For one thing, as somebody who’s both made and worn historical costumes, yes, it is possible to manage one’s excretory functions while wearing them, without assistance.
For another, women didn’t routinely need to use the toilet right after dinner in Victorian and pre-Victorian times, any more than they do today. Women would “dress for dinner” in the privacy of their own rooms, attending to whatever eliminatory needs they might have at that time, and then (except in case of indisposition) not need to excrete for the next three or four hours. Ditto for non-resident dinner guests arriving before dinner, who would be shown to the general ladies’ or gentlemen’s dressing room, in which lavatory facilities would be available.
Nope, the origins of the “ladies withdrawing after dinner” custom aren’t prudishly shrouded in mystery to conceal the existence of normal bodily functions. The custom exists for exactly the reason routinely assigned to it: so that in a patriarchal society with fairly rigid gender roles, the males could have an opportunity to engage in traditionally male activities (smoking, drinking strong wines or liquors, telling naughty stories, discussing politics, etc.) that were considered inappropriate for females to participate in and/or outright offensive to them.
I’m impressed. I can’t hold my bladder for four hours after a meal. I can’t imagine the circumstance in which there was so much alcohol consumption and not making multiple trips to the facilities over the course of an evening.
I can’t do it for three- so while I don’t believe for one minute that the withdrawing was because women needed an opportunity to use the facilities as a group so they could assist each other with clothing, neither do I believe routinely they “held it “ from an hour or two before dinner until three or four hours afterward. Not unless they made it a point to avoid liquids.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I once read a book where the main character attended a fraternity reunion. This was all men, no wives or girlfriends, but they still formed two groups. One contingent drank whiskey and discussed politics and the stock market; the other drank beer and discussed cross-training and told jokes.
Well, yeah, but intended to use for urination. There wasn’t much in the way of running water, back then.
I think I’ve read of Margaret Thatcher having to deal with this custom (and choosing between aggravating her hosts or missing out on the more relevant discussions the men were having), so it may have persisted as late as the 1980s.
This discussion reminds me of the piss boy scene from “History of the world, Part 1”
Right, IIRC until the 19th century women were usually naked their skirts & petticoats and even when panties came into fashion they were crotch less until the late 19th century.