Home


Index of all articles, click here


Disease and sexual morals


By Sam Zanahar (2006)

As humans, we are rightfully proud of our capability to engage in philosophical contemplation. On the other hand, the effect of philosophical contemplation on decisions of how we conduct our lives is often overestimated. Indeed, our opinions, and whole belief systems, typically depend heavily on the human mode of production, rather than what we regard as our independent intellect.

Let's take sexual morals. We assume that our sexual morals are primarily dependent on our metaphysical outlook.

Modern society punishes sexual transgressions more severely than other crimes. This only makes sense on the base of special moral considerations.

However, sexual morals, just as all forms of ideological superstructures, depend far more on the modes of production of human societies than on philosophical insight.

One aspect of particular importance is the degree to which a human society is capable to produce the absence of sexually transmitted diseases. Diseases, caused by pathogens, are a fact of nature. The capability of human societies to prevent or to cure them depends on the modes of production.

In this respect, the productive capabilities of traditional societies were very limited. They knew how to ammeliorate symptoms with herbs. Compared with the productive capabilities of modern societies (which not only can properly diagnose diseases but also cure them with antibiotics and the like), the modes of production of traditional societies were very limited indeed.

Throughout history, a high degree of monogamy did have undeniable advantages because general libertinage would have left much of a society crippled by sexually transmitted diseases.

Sexually transmitted diseases, in this context, are not restricted to classic venereal disease such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia. For a historic perspective, one will have to include pests such as scabies and other diseases that are transmitted through close physical contact, whether sexual or not.

Scabies, caused by itch mites that are too small to be seen by the naked eye, would have reached epidemic proportions in any sexually liberal society much faster than gonorrhea or syphilis, and the disturbing factor likely was or would have been much graver.

Scabies is not primarily transmitted by sexual intercourse, but by plain skin contact, which, however, is most likely to occur between adults when they have sexual intercourse.

On the other hand, I wonder whether the Catholic approach (not to get fully undressed during sexual intercourse) has to do more with putting up a barrier against scabies rather than the devil.

Intense skin contact of a minute or two is enough to transmit scabies from one human host to another. Once on a human host, the whole body will sooner or later be covered with pimple-like eruptions causing an unbearable itch.

Nobody can withstand the scabies itch without scratching, thus causing a second lawyer of infection, this time bacterial and fungal.

People don't die from scabies, the "seven-year itch". But they can die from the bacterial infection that constant scratching induces.

The epidemiological control of scabies also always was much more difficult than of classic venereal disease such as gonorrhea or syphilis, both of which require genital contact. Scabies actually will not only affect two sexual partners, but immediately most of their private environments. It's usually not a single person who is infected, but a whole household.

If a household's teenage daughter has sexual intercourse with an infected outside man, than her mother and father, and her brothers and sisters, and their children, and the in-laws, will likely all be infected within days, and it may be weeks before symptoms occur. The danger is all the greater the poorer the family, and the more crowded the family home. Most of those infected will not or would not have died for years, but would have been miserable with the big itch until their death.

While the disease can be treated today, in a historic setting scabies and other sexually transmitted diseases, rather than philosophical contemplation, lead to restrictive sexual morals. People did not adopt monogamous morals out of philosophical contemplation or piety. Rather, they became monogamous in order to escape sexually transmitted disease of epidemical proportion, and then subscribed to congruent religious or philosophical systems because that looked so much more noble than blaming it on sexually transmitted diseases. Their sexual morals were, and are, but an ideological superstructure for the lack of productive capabilities to control sexually transmitted diseases (a deficiency of the modes of production).

That pious men who indeed avoided all physical contact, and never were naked, were likely to remain free of scabies and other sexually transmitted disease was taken as perfect proof that a God meant us to be abstinent, or at least monogamous.

(The following are remarks added in October 2006.)

If we want to create a new society in which men and women can pursue optimal sexual satisfaction much more freely than in previous societies, the control of sexually transmitted diseases, from AIDS to scabies, is of great importance.

To keep sexually transmitted diseases out of societies isn't just important for the general health of a population. It does indeed have metaphysical implications because keeping sexually transmitted diseases at an absolute minimum also pulls the carpet from under the feet of anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists who argue that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are a God-sent punishment for free sex.

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases so perfectly match the reasoning of anti-sexual lunatics that I have always doubted the seriousness of governments led by Christian fundamentalists to find a cure for AIDS, the only major sexually transmitted diseases that current science cannot heal. AIDS just suits their moral agenda too well for them to be interested in its control.

If the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases effects the curtailing of sexual freedom, both directly and because it serves as an excuse for anti-sexual government policies, then, logically, the control of sexually transmitted diseases is likely to enhance sexual freedom.

That more control means more freedom sounds like an anachronism to all those who believe that less, or weak, government per se means more freedom. But personal freedom doesn't depend on whether government is weak or whether government is strong. It depends on whether government is based on an ideology of granting optimal personal freedom to the citizens it rules, or not.

And a strong government with an ideological commitment of implementing as much personal freedom as possible in an as safe as possible environment is still our best bet for a life of pursuing optimal sexual satisfaction.

That only a strong government will be capable of keeping a society free of sexual diseases, even if there is a high level of promiscuity, is just one argument that speaks in favor or strong government.


Index of articles, click here.


Copyright Sam Zanahar