36 million people have died from AIDS related illnesses since the start of the pandemic: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet
HIV has affected the life expectancy of entire countries: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Comparis...
As for HIV positive people, the number of such is going up, not down.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-and-new-cases-of-h...
This is partially because of a good thing, that less people die from AIDS than they used to. Mainly it's because HIV can't be cured though, which means you live your entire life with a weakened immune system.
We need more STD awareness, not less. Especially not dismiss STD awareness as "fear-mongering". Especially if you want to explore society models with less monogamy.
But you're right. As you move away from monogamy, sexual health becomes more important rather than less.
When monogamous, you can kind of address the question of health once and mostly forget about it for the duration of the relationship (modulo a few exceptions -- HSV-1 and Hep are transmissible outside of sex, any sort of blood-blood contact should be thought of as roughly equivalent to unprotected sex, etc; you get the point, though).
When non-monogamous, you have to think about STDs more like COVID in 2020 -- constant masking and regular testing as the default, and if you want to let your guard down it requires some special effort.
As to those teaching practices, they are horrible. Yes, in theory, "in the lab", abstinence does prevent STDs. But this doesn't work in real life. It can't ever inform the STD avoidance strategy taught to pupils, as enough people will have sex no matter what is taught to them. If they don't know how to reduce STDs when having sex, they will spread them more.
The reaction should not be to discard STD avoidance though, but to do it properly. Which is sadly tougher in places in which promiscuous behaviour is shamed, as they usually have less availability for STD testing, buying protections, and people might feel ashamed or even be ostracized to seek out such places.
If you're wondering, "what happens to people that have a good gut feeling for fairness, but who aren't smart enough to subconsciously work out how 5 people are going to take care of a child, and who want kids," then the answer is, they are the vast majority of the population and they're not going to fit the non-monogamous system unless massive inequality (see bronze age) forces them there.
There are good reasons for stigmatizing nakedness, fearing STDs, conceptualizing sex as something that should exist in monogamous, emotionally close relationships, and so on. That's not to say tradition is infallible, only that dismissing it altogether is a mistake.
But that doesn't necessarily mean we can abandon monogamy or un-problematize sex, nakedness, or bodily functions.
I think you meant "subjectively speaking". I don't agree with the way you conceptualize human history as gender struggle. It seems incorrect to me.
I don't think we have any option than continuing down the path. Reforms and changes are necessary but we aren't going to create a better way of living by abandoning the past. Our ability to meaningfully critique tradition depends on our treating it as a series of intricate answers to complicated problems, which is what it is.
The "males have a hard time finding dates/sex" is just as much a thing in poly communities. In fact, I consistently have a harder time dating women when I have a steady partner than when I'm single. If anything, ENM makes the lives of men who struggle in singles dating pools even more difficult.
The basic problem I've seen, over and over and over, is that many men don't know how to form normal relationships with women. Even in situations where sex is... more liberated, for lack of a better term... those men still have a really hard time getting past first dates. Unsurprisingly.
There's also a strong overlap between this cohort and men who don't have female friends.
I think there's probably something deeper than "women don't want sex" going on here. There's a big cohort of men who aren't desirable as sexual partners and want to blame society instead of changing themselves. Non-monogamy doesn't solve that problem. Hell, I'm not even sure that legalizing sex work could solve that problem.
Do you have any proof that the imbalances described have been decreasing as either belief in traditional gender roles and marriage rates have declined?
No. Non-monogamy is still incredibly rare. The vast majority of people are monogamous even before living together.
Sexual compulsions are very influential, but people almost universally find relationships revolving primarily around sex to be completely unfulfilling (eventually).
Yeah, supposedly in such a society people would no longer be discriminating when it comes to sexual partners. They will have sex with anyone and everyone. It's a fantasy.
I've even seen feminists arguing this. "Feminism is good for men too, they get more sex!" Except the unattractive men are never invited to the party.
Amusing, because the communists actually thought of it, and come up with this solution: that everybody should just be willingly give sex to everybody (or another variant, that everybody should just considered to be equally attractive).
For example here in Germany there was the famous "Kommune 1" in the 60ies, and they had the mantra "Wer zweimal mit derselben pennt, gehört schon zum Establishment" - meaning if you have sex with the same woman twice, you are already the enemy.
I don't think that is the "freeing of women" that its proponents claim it is. Quite the opposite, it is the ultimate "utilization" of women who lose the rights over their bodies.
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.htm...
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-...
Capitalism doesn't escape this either. The notion that you'll find a good wife if you work hard and become successful is ingrained into men since early childhood. It's magical thinking, of course. No such guarantee exists.
(She is pretty open about it on Twitter, or I would never have posted this information).
In my comment I touched on traditional gender roles vs egalitarianism. I too agree that we should absolutely not revert the changes. But one must admit that the traditional gender roles had an appropriate balance.
>or to throw our hands in the air and say "it's evolution!".
That's difficult to change though. The bell is ringing and there's no unringing.
>That way is to embrace and encourage sex work, to be open to non-monogamy and other non-traditional arrangements, deprogram ourselves from all of our subtle and not-so-subtle slut-shaming, stop pretending the naked body is illegal and sex is bad or dirty, stop dramatizing and fear-mongering over the impact of STDs, and just generally embrace a broader, vaster and more open perspective on sex and romance and intimacy.
Very long sentence lol. The majority of the world criminalizes sex work as well as even porn. Yet ironically those places are also far worse off. Japan is clearly a prime example.
STDs are certainly a complicated subject. Each individually represent a small percentage of risk but together isnt addition, it's multiplication of risk. It's compounding interest as it were.
I think we are looking at it incorrectly. This is outside real control, in fact efforts to control will always result in the opposite result as expected. This is kind of something jordan peterson goes over, in an attempt to fix gender inequality has resulted in greater gender inequality.
We likely can only measure and monitor what's happening. Where does this balance go now that the balance broke. Men are going to benefit greatly here. Is that what we want? Is that a good thing? I suspect not.
Not all societies today even value monogamy. In France some consider the President weak if he doesn't have at least one mistress. And in fact the same thing in America.
Let's be honest you're trying to use a nature to excuse behavior most find unacceptable - there's risk residue if Christianity in that. I see this a lot in these appeals - you're essentially arguing that if you can show someone thing is natural it's beyond question. However, anthropologists admit that most human societies have developed monogamy of one form or another, with exceptions only for rulers.
We're not out here trying to convince men that being able to have sex with multiple partners throughout their lives is a good idea -- that part comes naturally to us.
Not by women. Obviously it's not that simple, but that is a true statement.
Also, do you believe women would not be competing for resources if there were no men, and are not competing for resources in general?
The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?
Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.