Sex and Disease

This is something I've wondered about for ages, myself.
Scientifically, it has been known for more than a full century that human beings, who intimately share infected bodily secretions, spread disease among themselves and all others with whom they later come into intimate contact, and even to their innocent offspring.  Lifelong disease is not something for which sane human beings strive.  Yet it is the absolutely predictable -- scientifically! -- result of this "sexual liberation" social construct.  "Sexual liberation" has produced whole generations of smart people, who wouldn't share a glass of water with a stranger for fear of contracting a communicable disease, but will willingly copulate with the same stranger in scientifically deluded fashion.
It just amazes me that the same kids that obsessively use the anti-bacterial gels will be, many times, the same ones that engage in intimate activities with strangers.



It gets worse. Women are far more likely to contract a venereal disease from intercourse than men, for obvious mechanical reasons. But which of the sexes has been more open and strident in celebrating the "liberation" movement?
Linda said…
I've been posting on these "unanticipated" problems (well, unanticipated by those called for the "liberation") for some time:

- infertility
- lifelong infection
- chronic inflammation leading to cancers
- drug side effects (drugs for blocking fertility or clearing up infections)
- inability to bond with a partner
- reduced pool of partners
- emotional fallout
- etc.

I have to accept some blame, myself. In the beginning, I was a fervent proponent of women's access to sexual license (although, a bit of a prude, myself, I seldom engaged in it). Over time, I saw the destruction the change had wrought in my friends and family. I speak out now because I hope to reduce my guilt for my part in it, and atone for my stupidity.

Popular posts from this blog


But...The Founding Fathers Were Young, So...