6 ms·

We'll cure those too. Rather than worrying about that scenario, I'd rather consider what the world will be like when there are no STDs. It's certainly more am

We'll cure those too. Rather than worrying about that scenario, I'd rather consider what the world will be like when there are no STDs. It's certainly more amusing than fretting about something that has already happened(super-variants of run of the mill STDs). As an aside, I wonder what role STDs played in the development of religion and the religious superstitions surrounding sex. Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity?

Valgrim 5y ago
What do you mean by can monogamy survive? Do you mean that in a world without STDs it would be abnormal for someone to expect an intimate relationship to be exclusive?
- Frost1x 5y ago
  The intimate relationship is one component of monogamy, there's also having a steady nearly guaranteed sexual partner with low risks. Ideally you're both monogamous so unless one had STIs before entering the relationship, it's incredibly unlikely either would acquire one and almost certainly not from intercourse but through some other means. There are people more interested in the low risk stable sexual benefits of a trustworthy monogamous relationship. I personally doubt it's more than the number of people wanting an intimate relationship beyond sex though.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinator 5y ago
    The intimate relationship is one component of monogamy It's certainly not exclusive to monogamy.
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    To add, relationships are not only about sex or a sexual partner. The emphasis in a proper relationship is on the partner part, not the sex part.
tw04 5y ago
>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? I guess define consequences? I sure as heck wouldn’t be ok with my wife having sex with other people just because STDs aren’t a problem… the consequence would be divorce with or without the STD.
refurb 5y ago
We'll cure those too. Sure, but after how many people get sick? Seems like a very dismissive comment.
felipemnoa 5y ago
>>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? The problem is that not everybody likes to share their partner. The likely consequence of a partner sleeping with other people is separation or divorce. Also, I'm pretty sure that STDs have virtually never stopped anybody from cheating on their spouse if they wanted to. So no, I don't think that a lack of STDs will have much effect on monogamy, if at all.
- swingerthrwy 5y ago
  Plenty of couples engage in consensual sex with other people… not always the result is doom and gloom.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
    Things get a bit more complicated once you get kids.
    - swingerthrwy 5y ago
      Only in availability, not in willingness. Besides, they will grow up.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    They said 'not everybody', which is not an absolute construction.
bawolff 5y ago
We also now have paternity tests readily available, so we dont neccesarily need marriage for inheritence purposes.
tryonenow 5y ago
There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship. Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss. So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.
- Marsymars 5y ago
  > There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship. Do you have any reading material on this to suggest?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Marriage has often had little to do with monogamy. Adultery was the norm throughout the centuries, particularly when marriage was forced, had to happen very early in life, and when divorce was not an option. Prostitution was often utilized most by the married, not by bachelors.
- Firadeoclus 5y ago
  Monogamy and casual sex are not opposites. You can both monogamously engage in casual sex, and be non-monogamous and reject casual sex.
ekianjo 5y ago
> Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? Consequences to promiscuity are not limited to STDs. Bad framing of the issue.
geomark 5y ago
Is monogamy in humans the result of evolutionary pressures or a social construct to serve other purposes? With the right social indoctrination the majority might not care at all about monogamy, even find it strange and undesirable, ala Brave New World.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  I think I care about the well-being of my family more than a cheap thrill.... by many orders of magnitude.
  - geomark 5y ago
    What if you don't have a family? In Brave New World there are no families. Technology plus social indoctrination have eliminated the need and desire for them.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      That's a hard pass from me. I rather we didn't use Brave New World and 1984 as guides on how to build the future.
      - geomark 5y ago
        Same for me. But of course that is because we have been conditioned to feel that way, isn't it?
        elbear 5y ago
        Sure, but that's not something people feel comfortable hearing, judging by your downvotes.
        rorykoehler 5y ago
        It's just not true. We're not robots.
rejectedandsad 5y ago
You know many of us can’t find a partner anyway, right? “Unchecked promiscuity” isn’t really a problem.
tsimionescu 5y ago
I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding). Much more likely, the problems with promiscuity were related to 'bastard' children and their role in inheritance; and to the father's uncertainty that a child was biologically theirs. In addition, many religious outlooks favor abstinence from bodily pleasures of all kind, so forbidding sexual pleasure and especially promiscuity seems well in tone with this.
- 01100011 5y ago
  Interesting that syphilis is theorized to come from the new world. I hadn't heard that before. Did the old world have gonorrhea, herpes, genital warts, molluscum, trich, or any other visible STD? It seems like any one of those would be sufficient to cause a superstitious, iron age people to suspect something was plaguing the sexually promiscuous.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    The old world had a lot of STDs, but nothing as destructive as syphilis. Notably, when syphilis was introduced into the Old World population, it was described as a very severe acute disease. It only became more chronic after a period of adaptation that took several decades. This might have made the initial societal reaction more extreme. https://www.everydayhealth.com/syphilis/painful-history-odd-bug/ https://www.everydayhealth.com/syphilis/painful-history-odd-...
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding). Chlamydia rarely has life threatening complications but gonorrhea and hepatitis can kill. And there aren’t any STDs that don’t often cause infertility. Religions favored not screwing around because you’re guaranteed to get an STD eventually if you do, and that will very likely lead to infertility or worse.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? Well yeah, sex is cool and all but I don't like strangers or sharing. I've never understood the "promiscuous" lifestyle that a different part of society seems to be natural at. Thankfully that's not the norm, just one of many subcultures.
kenneth 5y ago
There are very little consequences to promiscuity today as long as you're not gay. Heterosexual vaginal sex is very low risk, especially with birth control being widely available. There's a bit of a gender disconnect in risk, but for a male it's even lower risk in terms of catching something than for the female.
- a2tech 5y ago
  Treatment resistant variants of syphillis and gonherea are on the upswing. Herpes is still a persistent problem. And these risks don't care whether you're gay or straight. I don't care what people do (inside the bounds of informed consent), but no matter what, wear a condom and don't share needles. Otherwise, have a blast.

Valgrim 5y ago

What do you mean by can monogamy survive? Do you mean that in a world without STDs it would be abnormal for someone to expect an intimate relationship to be exclusive?

Frost1x 5y ago
The intimate relationship is one component of monogamy, there's also having a steady nearly guaranteed sexual partner with low risks. Ideally you're both monogamous so unless one had STIs before entering the relationship, it's incredibly unlikely either would acquire one and almost certainly not from intercourse but through some other means. There are people more interested in the low risk stable sexual benefits of a trustworthy monogamous relationship. I personally doubt it's more than the number of people wanting an intimate relationship beyond sex though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- justinator 5y ago
  The intimate relationship is one component of monogamy It's certainly not exclusive to monogamy.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  To add, relationships are not only about sex or a sexual partner. The emphasis in a proper relationship is on the partner part, not the sex part.

tw04 5y ago

>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? I guess define consequences? I sure as heck wouldn’t be ok with my wife having sex with other people just because STDs aren’t a problem… the consequence would be divorce with or without the STD.

refurb 5y ago

We'll cure those too. Sure, but after how many people get sick? Seems like a very dismissive comment.

felipemnoa 5y ago

>>Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? The problem is that not everybody likes to share their partner. The likely consequence of a partner sleeping with other people is separation or divorce. Also, I'm pretty sure that STDs have virtually never stopped anybody from cheating on their spouse if they wanted to. So no, I don't think that a lack of STDs will have much effect on monogamy, if at all.

swingerthrwy 5y ago
Plenty of couples engage in consensual sex with other people… not always the result is doom and gloom.
- dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
  Things get a bit more complicated once you get kids.
  - swingerthrwy 5y ago
    Only in availability, not in willingness. Besides, they will grow up.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  They said 'not everybody', which is not an absolute construction.

bawolff 5y ago

We also now have paternity tests readily available, so we dont neccesarily need marriage for inheritence purposes.

tryonenow 5y ago

There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship. Pair bonding is crucial to social organization and casual encounters erode the psychological capacity for such bonds, without nullifying the innate human desire for long term companionship. The result in a "sex positive" society is a growing proportion of perpetually lonely and frustrated people, or dysfunctional relationships. One of the few instances in my opinion where ignorance truly may be bliss. So, to your question, it's quite possible that we will rediscover the purpose of monogamous marriage, if we can reason past the barriers of some recent ideologies.

Marsymars 5y ago
> There are understated psychological consequences to casual sex, particularly for females. Only in my 30s did I begin to understand the damage that my ostensibly harmless casual relations caused to many past partners, particularly those who grew attached before the end of the casual relationship. Do you have any reading material on this to suggest?
tsimionescu 5y ago
Marriage has often had little to do with monogamy. Adultery was the norm throughout the centuries, particularly when marriage was forced, had to happen very early in life, and when divorce was not an option. Prostitution was often utilized most by the married, not by bachelors.
Firadeoclus 5y ago
Monogamy and casual sex are not opposites. You can both monogamously engage in casual sex, and be non-monogamous and reject casual sex.

ekianjo 5y ago

> Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? Consequences to promiscuity are not limited to STDs. Bad framing of the issue.

geomark 5y ago

Is monogamy in humans the result of evolutionary pressures or a social construct to serve other purposes? With the right social indoctrination the majority might not care at all about monogamy, even find it strange and undesirable, ala Brave New World.

rorykoehler 5y ago
I think I care about the well-being of my family more than a cheap thrill.... by many orders of magnitude.
- geomark 5y ago
  What if you don't have a family? In Brave New World there are no families. Technology plus social indoctrination have eliminated the need and desire for them.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    That's a hard pass from me. I rather we didn't use Brave New World and 1984 as guides on how to build the future.
    - geomark 5y ago
      Same for me. But of course that is because we have been conditioned to feel that way, isn't it?
      - elbear 5y ago
        Sure, but that's not something people feel comfortable hearing, judging by your downvotes.
        rorykoehler 5y ago
        It's just not true. We're not robots.

rejectedandsad 5y ago

You know many of us can’t find a partner anyway, right? “Unchecked promiscuity” isn’t really a problem.

tsimionescu 5y ago

I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding). Much more likely, the problems with promiscuity were related to 'bastard' children and their role in inheritance; and to the father's uncertainty that a child was biologically theirs. In addition, many religious outlooks favor abstinence from bodily pleasures of all kind, so forbidding sexual pleasure and especially promiscuity seems well in tone with this.

01100011 5y ago
Interesting that syphilis is theorized to come from the new world. I hadn't heard that before. Did the old world have gonorrhea, herpes, genital warts, molluscum, trich, or any other visible STD? It seems like any one of those would be sufficient to cause a superstitious, iron age people to suspect something was plaguing the sexually promiscuous.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  The old world had a lot of STDs, but nothing as destructive as syphilis. Notably, when syphilis was introduced into the Old World population, it was described as a very severe acute disease. It only became more chronic after a period of adaptation that took several decades. This might have made the initial societal reaction more extreme. https://www.everydayhealth.com/syphilis/painful-history-odd-bug/ https://www.everydayhealth.com/syphilis/painful-history-odd-...
barry-cotter 5y ago
> I don't think historic STDs were a major component of the bans against promiscuity, since before syphilis was brought over from the Americas, you didn't really have life-threatening STDs around in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Asia (HPV's link with cancer notwithstanding). Chlamydia rarely has life threatening complications but gonorrhea and hepatitis can kill. And there aren’t any STDs that don’t often cause infertility. Religions favored not screwing around because you’re guaranteed to get an STD eventually if you do, and that will very likely lead to infertility or worse.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> Can monogamy survive in the long-term in a world without consequences to promiscuity? Well yeah, sex is cool and all but I don't like strangers or sharing. I've never understood the "promiscuous" lifestyle that a different part of society seems to be natural at. Thankfully that's not the norm, just one of many subcultures.

kenneth 5y ago

There are very little consequences to promiscuity today as long as you're not gay. Heterosexual vaginal sex is very low risk, especially with birth control being widely available. There's a bit of a gender disconnect in risk, but for a male it's even lower risk in terms of catching something than for the female.

a2tech 5y ago
Treatment resistant variants of syphillis and gonherea are on the upswing. Herpes is still a persistent problem. And these risks don't care whether you're gay or straight. I don't care what people do (inside the bounds of informed consent), but no matter what, wear a condom and don't share needles. Otherwise, have a blast.