"STDs wouldn't exist if we had the social contract of yore" is provably false and a retard level take.
Sexual Disease was so rampant in the 1500-1700s that wigs and makeup to cover syphilis scars were accepted into mainstream culture which persists to this day.
More extreme measures would be required for the desired outcome.
Natural selection maybe, but part of "social contract" is illustrating these people for being exactly as disgusting as they are - making them feel shame for it. There is an entire social strata that you are ignoring that makes certain traits more or less desirable; reward and ostracization are two of the most potent factors within this domain, especially with women since they are a creature of flock consensus. The problem is we liberated them - everywhere you see this, this mistake is/was made.
Everything that you're seeing now is a push towards shamelessness. And you are correct in that "social contract" often does fall apart, it has a lifespan, but to say that it has never worked is absolute foolishness. That's like civilization should never be tried, because all civilizations have failed and will fail.
The extreme measures are part of enforcing this contract, or rather, establishing a new one.
Natural selection filled that role for a time, but now that we "manage" chronic disease and in some cases cure them, we have entirely removed natural selection from the equation.
I don't disagree that it is the natural safeguard, but we are far from it now.
Many of the "puritans" and protestants of the new world were just as guilty. Blackbeard attacked Charleston not for money, but for medicine...to treat syphilis. The fact that they knew a supply would be there tells you a lot for the demand at the time.
All the founding fathers of the US wore wigs. Franklin, arguably Quaker, was most notorious for his debauchery. Jefferson fathered children out of wedlock.
This mythical moral standards did not and has never existed.
Many of you seem to think I'm advocating all our hedonism, which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. What I am saying is: moral standards are not enough to keep this in cheque and legal safeguards need to be in place for any hope.
All the founding fathers of the US wore wigs. Franklin, arguably Quaker, was most notorious for his debauchery. Jefferson fathered children out of wedlock.
This mythical moral standards did not and has never existed.
You just corroborated his point. Regals had the opportunity to engage in more debauchery than commoners -- the rules for thee, not for me dictum. Most commoners could not afford to engage in such trifles due to the difficulty in surviving at the time -- the social contracts held well for the commoners, opposite of how it is today where everyone is actively being encouraged from the top-down -- the zeitgeist -- to abandon shame, embrace pride, and act degenerate.
None of those are "royalty" of any sort, and in fact all despised the concept. Teach/blackbeard, nor his crew, definitely weren't and you conveniently ignore that fact. Also why was their so much medicine in Charleston for it if no one needed it?
As for Victorian era Britain, mothers were selling their teenage daughters into prostitution:
Education about herpes IS needed, and is evident here. Even OP seems to think it makes your dick shrivel with boils 24/7, when in fact it's incredibly opportunistic and hides extremely well. Particularly on women it can be almost impossible to spot depending on how the labia is shaped. It may also be in areas covered by hair, which is why the "merkin" came into being around the same time.
Most people here seem to have zero experience with women, which I guess shouldn't be surprising. Most of the time these diseases are not obvious and I have seen young men get caught by this before. We need more education about these diseases, not less... But it needs to be truly academic and not as described in the article.
They generally don't/can't test for herpes. You have to be on the lookout and know signs.
And the men generally aren't plowing a lot, it just takes them trying to "save a ho", then they are entrapped with the woman forever sharing the disease. Seen it happen to good dudes.
"STDs wouldn't exist if we had the social contract of yore" is provably false and a retard level take.
Sexual Disease was so rampant in the 1500-1700s that wigs and makeup to cover syphilis scars were accepted into mainstream culture which persists to this day.
"The social contract" was always a lie.
Retard. Even more so, if that was barely keeping a lid on this shit you definitely don't want it gone altogether. Also, the where and when matters.
The point is it never worked in the history of the West and "going back" to it won't work either.
More extreme measures would be required for the desired outcome.
Natural selection maybe, but part of "social contract" is illustrating these people for being exactly as disgusting as they are - making them feel shame for it. There is an entire social strata that you are ignoring that makes certain traits more or less desirable; reward and ostracization are two of the most potent factors within this domain, especially with women since they are a creature of flock consensus. The problem is we liberated them - everywhere you see this, this mistake is/was made.
Everything that you're seeing now is a push towards shamelessness. And you are correct in that "social contract" often does fall apart, it has a lifespan, but to say that it has never worked is absolute foolishness. That's like civilization should never be tried, because all civilizations have failed and will fail.
The extreme measures are part of enforcing this contract, or rather, establishing a new one.
Natural selection filled that role for a time, but now that we "manage" chronic disease and in some cases cure them, we have entirely removed natural selection from the equation.
I don't disagree that it is the natural safeguard, but we are far from it now.
I don't think you understand how extreme I want. I view even the peaks of prudishness as being too weakhanded.
Those were the aristocracy. French royal courts etc, which were famous for their degeneracy.
The Puritan movement and, later, Victorian sensibilities were a response to that degenerate bullshit.
I remind you that the British Empire reached its height in the Victorian age.
Want to point to the orgies of the late Roman empire and declare that everyone, everywhere has orgies?
Some great posts in this thread
Not at all.
Many of the "puritans" and protestants of the new world were just as guilty. Blackbeard attacked Charleston not for money, but for medicine...to treat syphilis. The fact that they knew a supply would be there tells you a lot for the demand at the time.
All the founding fathers of the US wore wigs. Franklin, arguably Quaker, was most notorious for his debauchery. Jefferson fathered children out of wedlock.
This mythical moral standards did not and has never existed.
Many of you seem to think I'm advocating all our hedonism, which is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. What I am saying is: moral standards are not enough to keep this in cheque and legal safeguards need to be in place for any hope.
You just corroborated his point. Regals had the opportunity to engage in more debauchery than commoners -- the rules for thee, not for me dictum. Most commoners could not afford to engage in such trifles due to the difficulty in surviving at the time -- the social contracts held well for the commoners, opposite of how it is today where everyone is actively being encouraged from the top-down -- the zeitgeist -- to abandon shame, embrace pride, and act degenerate.
None of those are "royalty" of any sort, and in fact all despised the concept. Teach/blackbeard, nor his crew, definitely weren't and you conveniently ignore that fact. Also why was their so much medicine in Charleston for it if no one needed it?
As for Victorian era Britain, mothers were selling their teenage daughters into prostitution:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maiden_Tribute_of_Modern_Babylon
And just before then, the marquis de Sade wrote the literal book on sadism and sexual deviancy.
Feminism traces it's roots to then as well.
This was not the era of morality you all believe in.
There's a fine and important distinction between "not completely effective" and "total lie."
"Breaking the stigma" and "educating" about herpes can only hurt everyone.
Education about herpes IS needed, and is evident here. Even OP seems to think it makes your dick shrivel with boils 24/7, when in fact it's incredibly opportunistic and hides extremely well. Particularly on women it can be almost impossible to spot depending on how the labia is shaped. It may also be in areas covered by hair, which is why the "merkin" came into being around the same time.
Most people here seem to have zero experience with women, which I guess shouldn't be surprising. Most of the time these diseases are not obvious and I have seen young men get caught by this before. We need more education about these diseases, not less... But it needs to be truly academic and not as described in the article.
We could all stand to be more worldly, but dudes shouldn't be plowing a bunch of women either.
As Tony Soprano said, "I've been teshted! Who do you think I am!" Probably a good idea to start there for LTRs etc.
They generally don't/can't test for herpes. You have to be on the lookout and know signs.
And the men generally aren't plowing a lot, it just takes them trying to "save a ho", then they are entrapped with the woman forever sharing the disease. Seen it happen to good dudes.
We need leper colonies for these whores.