Risky “Sexual Marketplace”: Beware Loathsome STDs

by Davd on October 21, 2011

Wake Up to Risk:
The Sexual Revolution has Badly Fouled its Nest
by Davd, 2011

To invent a name, let’s call her Linda. She’s at least half smart, lively, and [as the name Linda implies] good-looking. You and she meet at a public event of some kind, and discover two or three common interests. There is an ambiguous ring on her third finger, left hand, which might or might not indicate that she’s married. Accordingly, though you’re single and she’s attractive, you’re merely friendly.

Not so Wally: He is what the Latinos call mujerigo and the Anglos of the 1980s called a lounge lizard. He doesn’t care if she’s married, he does care that she’s good-looking; and so he invites her out that very evening, while you go home to cover the tomato and cucumber plants against a risk of frost.

Three weeks later, you and Linda are in a task group together, working on one of those common interests; and you find out she’s widowed. You meet for lunch, and you ask what came of her date[s] with Wally.

“It was a fun weekend but I knew there was no future in it,” she replies. “Does that mean you need some STD tests in another five months?” you ask. It isn’t the most endearing thing to say-far from it-but it is the most practical. If she had repeated intercourse with a man you estimate to have had 200-500 ‘partners’ in his 20 sexually active years, then to rush into a similar intimacy amounts to nonviolent Russian roulette.* There’s no point in pursuing “courtship” until after those STD tests, unless and until you’re convinced she either did not become intimate with Wally, or that condoms were rigorously employed if she did… and that what she and Wally “did” was of such nature that condoms constituted adequate prophylaxis.

“It was a fun weekend”, since 1980 or earlier, implies intercourse. “But I knew there was no future in it,” implies availability. The “epidemiological risk environment” of the 21st Century, implies danger.

My point is not to complain; rather to warn: I’ve been sexually abstinent for eight years now and i will quite likely remain abstinent for life: I’m not in the game Linda and Wally were playing; and while at my age that’s an easier choice, one powerful motivation for abstinence is that it’s a far more dangerous game than it was in 1970.

The STD risks that four decades of “the Sexual Revolution” have generated, add up to substantial reason to be monogamous or abstinent. During the same two generations that civil “marriage” has become more of a trap and far less of a promise, promiscuity has become dangerous not just for “pregnancy extortion”, but also for risk of ugly, painful, often deadly disease.

If that “fun weekend” was indeed ‘sexually active’, it has spoiled Linda’s legitimate chances for a more-than-fun relationship until she’s sat out six months and “passed the tests”-unless, of course, Linda’s lifestyle resembles Wally’s and she was “dangerous fun” before tangling with him. (In that case she had little or nothing to spoil-and she’s still unsafe for sexy-dating unless and until she waits out the months and passes the tests. There are more tests to pass today than there were in 1970, too.)

AIDS, Hepatitis, Herpes, HPV-and even gonorrhea and syphilis, which naughty Aunt Laura told you penicillin would cure-are dividing us into the prudes and the promiscuous. The middle ground is turning to quicksand. The “Venereal Diseases” of 1970, which penicillin could cure back then, have evolved into the “STD”s of 2010, which are resistant to penicillin and which include the carcinogenic “HPV” and an especially insidious viral disease, AIDS, whose existence hadn’t even been documented in 1970.

In 1965-75, it may have seemed to many young adults-and even some “experts”-that STD risk was comparable to the risk of catching the ‘flu or a mere common cold. Penicillin was standard treatment for syphilis and gonorrhea and usually it worked. Herpes was an annoyance, and not that common; hepatitis and HPV were very rare; HIV was not even known to exist.

“Liberal” sexual habits formed on the basis of what was known then were minimally dangerous then; today they are quite dangerous: It turns out that the sexually “free”, are not and were not free from the processes of epidemiology, and their fun spread STD germs-including drug-resistant strains-raised STD infection rates, and decreased the treatability of those STDs.

The dangers of the “Sexual Market Place” are not all emotional and financial-and they are much greater than they were when sexual “liberation” began-directly because of all that “liberated sex”. “Prudish” attitudes and habits that were ridiculed on the basis of what was known then are wisely prudent now. Devout religious people who held to the old wisdom of faith rather than trust in the medical treatments of the time, have some cause to say that their old wisdom is more trustworthy than the medical assurances. More precisely, the medical assurances turned out to be quite transitory-the treatments mostly worked then, but not now. Monogamy and abstinence still work.

Most revolutions last months or years rather than decades; and the “sexual revolution” was already longer than most political revolutions by 1990. Most revolutions end-up more like they began than like “the height of them”, and the “sexual revolution” – we may hope – is doing the same. To continue the promiscuity of the peak years, will entail a lot more misery and early death.

It’s much more than a mere shame, that Feminism has done monogamy so much damage. There are public health reasons as well as fairness reasons, why the law should support lifetime marriage promises and discourage divorce and adultery.

And those men who “shop in the sexual marketplace” need to keep in mind, that whether they think goods or services are on offer, an unknown percentage-a much higher percentage than two generations ago or even one-are infected with dangerous, loathsome diseases. Becoming infected yourself will not make you a better nor a happier man.

 

* Russian roulette really existed: During World War II and perhaps earlier, Soviet-Russian soldiers would put one live round in a 6- or 8-chamber revolver, spin the drum, point the muzzle at their heads just above the ear, and pull the trigger. Allied troops who saw this done were flabbergasted.

{ 140 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: