Hey MGB
Thanks for your kind words. And the good arguments presented.
The reference I made as in 'how/what sex was meant to be' goes back to the view expressed in last bbd's posting:
Quote:
|
After all, bareback is the way sex was meant to happen.
|
I do disagree with the notion that everything that happened and the way it happened on the day one was what was right, and it should have stayed somehow immutable in order to maintain its genuinity and inherent value. This is a possibly the most universally abused argument of all the conservatives throughout the times. And yet, it does sound simple, good and reassuring. Nonetheless, it is as false as it could only be.
If there ever was a day one in any plausibly definable terms, sex must have equalled bb'ing. Soon, humanity discovered that endless procreation was simply unaffordable in more ways than one and started introducing various, however primitive ways of changing what and how it was on the day one to make sure they survive to write the day abc+1 or any other day for that matter.
Just like none of us goes back to history and says 'walking is the way travel was meant to happen', simply because it would be largely uneconomical and unreasonable to do so. Indeed, no one doubts that in the beginning, people simply walked from A to B rather than taking cars, buses, trains and commercial airliners. Why would I stick with my arguments and my view of the world only when it somehow justifies what I really want to achieve and forget my immutable truths the moment they stop working for me?
---
Condoms in their very rudimentary form ( e.g. sheep's skin) were not invented to protect humanity from any particular disease as at the time when such primitive condoms came into being, humanity lacked the knowledge and understanding of the STDs. They were meant to protect women and couples from unwanted pregnancies. The fact that condoms protect from a host of STDs was merely a very welcome side-effect which became known at some point of time, possibly in 19 century and started massively loosing its importance after the discovery and massive application of antibiotics in the second half of the 20 century.
Obviously, procreative sex had to remain bb'ing for better or worse in its technical sense. Yet, societies went a very long way to create a set of powerful institutions that would secure conjugal fidelity. Adultery, simple cheating out of the wedlock used to be a despicable crimes and would invariably end being severely punished. You protected the sanctity of your conjugal bed mostly for two reasons: you did not want to spend your good money rearing someone else's children and later on with the general growth of medical knowledge, you wanted to make sure that no one introduces a potentially lethal bug into your unprotected system.
I have little doubt that most such institutions, i.e. wedlock, general sense of Christian morality, etc., largely failed to meet the expectations of the general public. Yet, they are among so many other things collossal monuments to humanity's quest of providing substitute protection where technically, no protection was meaningful.
KD
---