I'm really unsure of how to continue this line of conversation when you're so unable to understand me, and so unwilling to look into something yourself to incre

I'm really unsure of how to continue this line of conversation when you're so unable to understand me, and so unwilling to look into something yourself to increase your own understanding and satisfy your curiosity. I hadn't been treating this as antagonistic, either. I did not at any point say the evidence for my statement wasn't there. How do you interpret anything I've said as saying evidence wasn't there? I have now more than once said exactly the opposite, pointing you toward the historical record of human history. If you're interested, you can investigate it on your own. Look at religious texts. Look at ancient/classical texts. Look at antiquity and the Middle Ages. Look then to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and the ever-expanding records since. There is little to no historical evidence for your claim that recognizing STI danger predates establishing moral aversion to certain kinds of sexual practices, especially prostitution (the actual topic). You're offering a hypothetical and conceivable scenario, positing a great deal of modern sensibility onto pre-modern humanity, as if that has any explanatory and provable power against documented human history. We aren't going to get anywhere if your idea of seeking understanding is to suggest that some scenarios A, B, or C could have plausibly and conceivably happened, provide no evidence that this has ever been the case, and then ask for evidence that history did not happen that way. How is it that you think that is at all sensible? Seriously, go read the texts available that investigate and document the history of human sexuality if you don't want to just look at primary sources. There is so much material out there. A Google search will get you going. Moreover, I'm not at all talking past your question. I think you're expanding your question far beyond my original statement and may have your own idea of what it means to answer your question. Documented history of moral aversion to sexual practices predates any documented recognition and understanding of risk of danger, disease, and so on. This is my entire point. The evidence is in the historical records, which you can investigate to your own satisfaction. Documented history of many moral aversions often shows little rationale beyond establishing difference and power. My followup was simply explaining that, within the context of understanding the historical record, there isn't even a question that this is so. You are perhaps coming from outside that context. Fine. It's simply not my concern to provide a survey of the history of human sexuality, though you can tackle that topic on your own if you're that interested. My comment about Levitical law concerning women's periods predating Shakespeare wasn't offered as a piece of evidence related to this, but as an example of a statement based on historical record that is beyond doubt, just like the Newton-Einstein example. How is that not obvious from the context of my statement? I say specifically that I'm merely making statements in reference to the records of history. Levitical law predating Shakespeare is a matter of the historical record. As is the establishment of moral aversion to sexual practices predating germ theory and understanding the danger and risk of certain sexual behaviors. I mean, from my perspective, you're making my point for me. And yet, you're saying it's somehow not relevant.