6 ms·

I wonder how this microbe influenced human morality. Is the moral idea that promiscuity is bad a vestige of some healthy recommendation to avoid multiple partne

by srge 3y ago

I wonder how this microbe influenced human morality. Is the moral idea that promiscuity is bad a vestige of some healthy recommendation to avoid multiple partner to not get or propagate syphilis?

nradov 3y ago
Prior to the germ theory of disease, that connection was somewhat tenuous. Ancient moral strictures around promiscuity were based more on paternity uncertainty.
gedy 3y ago
You answered your question, undoubtedly this was a huge factor, similar to food and other taboos.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
Not syphilis specifically but all STDs. Even today promiscuity can leave you with incurable STDs even if you wear a condom. Not to mention that some STDs are antibiotic resistant now. So imagine life before this. Sleeping around is going to leave you with constant green discharge or worse.
- swagempire 3y ago
  Moralizing aside, which ones specifically can infect you even if you wear a condom?
  - 1999-03-31 3y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html Notably herpes, hpv and syphilis can still be transmitted
    - swagempire 3y ago
      "The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner" Sounds very much like some Christian agenda bring pushed here. 50% of the population gets herpes and syphilis gets cured with antibiotics. HPV has a vaccine. The article itself says you won't get anything if you use a condom properly. But hey -- don't leave the house for fear of a car accident type thing...
      - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
        "Sounds very much like some Christian agenda bring pushed here." You must be kidding. You are accusing the CDC of using a scientific fact (that is pretty obvious) of "Pushing a Christian agenda"? First of all, you are using HSV1 stats, which aren't the ones we are talking about, we are talking about Genital Herpes, which among adults affects only about 13%. https://khealth.com/learn/herpes/statistics/#:~:text=is%20less%20common.-,How%20Many%20People%20Have%20Herpes%20Worldwide%3F,population%2C%20or%20491%20million%20people https://khealth.com/learn/herpes/statistics/#:~:text=is%20le.... And "syphilis Gets cured with antibiotics" isnt that accurate either. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785152/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785152/ If you have the money for antibiotics, which many don't and you catch it early enough, which some don't, then yes it can be cured. However, as that link shows there are emergent antibiotic resistant strains that can absolutely destroy your life. As far as HPV goes there are huge sections of the population who don't have the HPV vaccine, some can't afford it even. People can do what they want, but objectively being promiscuous is dangerous to your health. It's less a question of it, but rather when.
        ChainOfFools 3y ago
        No no, you have it wrong, the person you're replying to is clearly just more comfortable with the topic of sex than you, and therefore we are expected to infer, better at it than you. This is the actual message of their comment, and all that are like it.
  - Traubenfuchs 3y ago
    The only STDs reliably prevented through condoms are probably HIV and trichomoniasis. You can get all of the following (probably 99% of all relevant STD cases recruit from those) via kissing (and blowjobs) alone: Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, urea/myco-plasma, crabs, HPV, HSV, several borderline-STD bacteria like H. parainfluenca.
- napierzaza 3y ago
  [dead]
icegreentea2 3y ago
STI's almost certainly played a role in establishing that social strategy, but also I believe that monogamous-ish represents a equilibrium state in terms of social stability. The reality is that people are biased towards their own biological children (on average), and men would in generally really prefer to raise their own child, rather than someone else's (on average). Raising a child requires an immense amount of resources. If you presume that men who discover that their partner have slept around, and their child is not theirs, and worse, they've sunk like 3 years of resources in keeping this kid alive, are even just slightly more likely to be liabilities to society, then you could see why such a societal strategy might emerge. The converse situation (men sleeping around) is somewhat different (though obviously related). The reality is that if you want to retain an approximately balanced gender balance in a population (perhaps because uh... you might need to compete in raiding/warfare), then you -cannot- have even a significant minority of men having exclusive access to more than one female without having significant societal stability issues. Combine this with men like knowing that their child is theirs, quickly settles you into "monogamous-ish". And it's "ish" because there are always exceptions.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  There is a hum bio lecture on this topic in apes by robert sapolski. Regarding herram vs nonherram ape species and how that has rippled out into many other physical differences between males and females. emergent sexual dimorphism. check it out. its from stanford. on youtube
- nradov 3y ago
  Monogamy is somewhat recent as a norm in human societies. DNA analysis shows that in ancient times, far more women than men had offspring. Many of the men died young and/or were kept as slaves. This type of society can be stable for a long time — until the slaves revolt. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
  - icegreentea2 3y ago
    I would not argue that such a society cannot persist for a long time. I would argue that monogamy(ish) is more stable, hence its success.

by srge 3y ago

I wonder how this microbe influenced human morality. Is the moral idea that promiscuity is bad a vestige of some healthy recommendation to avoid multiple partner to not get or propagate syphilis?

nradov 3y ago

Prior to the germ theory of disease, that connection was somewhat tenuous. Ancient moral strictures around promiscuity were based more on paternity uncertainty.

gedy 3y ago

You answered your question, undoubtedly this was a huge factor, similar to food and other taboos.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

DoesntMatter22 3y ago

Not syphilis specifically but all STDs. Even today promiscuity can leave you with incurable STDs even if you wear a condom. Not to mention that some STDs are antibiotic resistant now. So imagine life before this. Sleeping around is going to leave you with constant green discharge or worse.

swagempire 3y ago
Moralizing aside, which ones specifically can infect you even if you wear a condom?
- 1999-03-31 3y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html Notably herpes, hpv and syphilis can still be transmitted
  - swagempire 3y ago
    "The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner" Sounds very much like some Christian agenda bring pushed here. 50% of the population gets herpes and syphilis gets cured with antibiotics. HPV has a vaccine. The article itself says you won't get anything if you use a condom properly. But hey -- don't leave the house for fear of a car accident type thing...
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      "Sounds very much like some Christian agenda bring pushed here." You must be kidding. You are accusing the CDC of using a scientific fact (that is pretty obvious) of "Pushing a Christian agenda"? First of all, you are using HSV1 stats, which aren't the ones we are talking about, we are talking about Genital Herpes, which among adults affects only about 13%. https://khealth.com/learn/herpes/statistics/#:~:text=is%20less%20common.-,How%20Many%20People%20Have%20Herpes%20Worldwide%3F,population%2C%20or%20491%20million%20people https://khealth.com/learn/herpes/statistics/#:~:text=is%20le.... And "syphilis Gets cured with antibiotics" isnt that accurate either. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785152/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785152/ If you have the money for antibiotics, which many don't and you catch it early enough, which some don't, then yes it can be cured. However, as that link shows there are emergent antibiotic resistant strains that can absolutely destroy your life. As far as HPV goes there are huge sections of the population who don't have the HPV vaccine, some can't afford it even. People can do what they want, but objectively being promiscuous is dangerous to your health. It's less a question of it, but rather when.
      - ChainOfFools 3y ago
        No no, you have it wrong, the person you're replying to is clearly just more comfortable with the topic of sex than you, and therefore we are expected to infer, better at it than you. This is the actual message of their comment, and all that are like it.
- Traubenfuchs 3y ago
  The only STDs reliably prevented through condoms are probably HIV and trichomoniasis. You can get all of the following (probably 99% of all relevant STD cases recruit from those) via kissing (and blowjobs) alone: Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Chlamydia, urea/myco-plasma, crabs, HPV, HSV, several borderline-STD bacteria like H. parainfluenca.
napierzaza 3y ago
[dead]

icegreentea2 3y ago

STI's almost certainly played a role in establishing that social strategy, but also I believe that monogamous-ish represents a equilibrium state in terms of social stability. The reality is that people are biased towards their own biological children (on average), and men would in generally really prefer to raise their own child, rather than someone else's (on average). Raising a child requires an immense amount of resources. If you presume that men who discover that their partner have slept around, and their child is not theirs, and worse, they've sunk like 3 years of resources in keeping this kid alive, are even just slightly more likely to be liabilities to society, then you could see why such a societal strategy might emerge. The converse situation (men sleeping around) is somewhat different (though obviously related). The reality is that if you want to retain an approximately balanced gender balance in a population (perhaps because uh... you might need to compete in raiding/warfare), then you -cannot- have even a significant minority of men having exclusive access to more than one female without having significant societal stability issues. Combine this with men like knowing that their child is theirs, quickly settles you into "monogamous-ish". And it's "ish" because there are always exceptions.

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
There is a hum bio lecture on this topic in apes by robert sapolski. Regarding herram vs nonherram ape species and how that has rippled out into many other physical differences between males and females. emergent sexual dimorphism. check it out. its from stanford. on youtube
nradov 3y ago
Monogamy is somewhat recent as a norm in human societies. DNA analysis shows that in ancient times, far more women than men had offspring. Many of the men died young and/or were kept as slaves. This type of society can be stable for a long time — until the slaves revolt. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  I would not argue that such a society cannot persist for a long time. I would argue that monogamy(ish) is more stable, hence its success.