Should Casual Sex be Prohibited as Virus Prevention?

Forums: Social Distancing, Sexual Regulation
Email this Topic • Print this Page

During the 1990s, the evolving HIV crisis meant a lot of sex education and promotion of condom use. No laws were made against casual sex because the HIV virus could only be transmitted via bodily fluid contact, especially blood, semen, and vaginal fluid.

COVID19 and other airborne viruses are different. Condoms cannot stop people in close contact from spreading the disease, and sexual intercourse is probably the closest form of contact people can have, even if condoms are used. Monogamy may contain contact to a single couple, but casual sex or even having multiple sexual relationships at the same time could pose a threat to public health.

Marriage licenses are basically sex licenses. They used to mean more because non-marital forms of sexual contact like adultery were illegal. While it is unlikely that contemporary morality would support specific laws against sex outside of marriage, people could be required to apply for non-marital sex licenses that require periodic disease-testing, insurance to pay for medical services such as STI screening/treatment, pregnancy care, abortion (where legal), etc.

Should casual sex specifically and sexual contact more generally be more regulated to prevent the spread of COVID19 and future airborne pandemic viruses?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,462 • Replies: 21

@livinglava,

Quote:

Should casual sex specifically and sexual contact more generally be more regulated to prevent the spread of COVID19 and future airborne pandemic viruses?

Um, how do you propose to "regulate" this activity? Surveillance? Alexa? ISIS or the Taliban? Paid informants? What would the punishment consist of? What about married couples where one partner is contagious but doesn't know it? It sounds very impractical.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
Should casual sex specifically and sexual contact more generally be more regulated to prevent the spread of COVID19 and future airborne pandemic viruses?

Um, how do you propose to "regulate" this activity? Surveillance? Alexa? ISIS or the Taliban? Paid informants? What would the punishment consist of? What about married couples where one partner is contagious but doesn't know it? It sounds very impractical.

You would have to get regular screenings to maintain your license. If you would seek treatment for an STI, pregnancy care, abortion, etc. and your partner was unlicensed, that could be a form of rape insofar as legal consent would not be allowed without the proper license.

Obviously people who tested positive for pandemic viruses like COVID19 would have their licenses suspended until they could be re-tested as being no longer contagious.

Basically it would be a way of monitoring who is a vector and ensuring that they stay quarantined until they are no longer contagious.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

1. How are marriage licenses anything like "sex licenses"? (That is wrong on many levels.)

2. Why would you prohibit sex to prevent an airborne virus where a handshake is just as dangerous?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I think anyone with brains would deny you sex. Passing on your genes would be a sin.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

1. How are marriage licenses anything like "sex licenses"? (That is wrong on many levels.)

I agree with you from a broader shared-household perspective, but do you realize that very few forms of sexuality were legal before a few decades ago? Part of it was discriminatory bias, but another part was just regulating sexuality to prevent all the problems that come with pregnancy out of wedlock, disease transmission, exploitation, etc. etc.

Quote:

2. Why would you prohibit sex to prevent an airborne virus where a handshake is just as dangerous?

It's not prohibition. It's licensing and insurance, as well as screening and tracking.

Is driving prohibited by requiring licensing, tags and registration, vehicle inspections, and insurance?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

but do you realize that very few forms of sexuality were legal before a few decades ago?

What are you talking about. Thomas Jefferson had several lovers (including a married woman). Ben Franklin had many more. People have been having sex since the beginning of time. Yes there have been periodic attempts to regulate sex. They have generally failed because people like to have sex.

I don't think there is any form of sexuality that wasn't done legally long before the US was created.

Quote:

Quote:
2. Why would you prohibit sex to prevent an airborne virus where a handshake is just as dangerous?

It's not prohibition. It's licensing and insurance, as well as screening and tracking.

Is driving prohibited by requiring licensing, tags and registration, vehicle inspections, and insurance?

A handshake is a normal human interaction between two willing human participants. So is sex. We are not talking about driving here. We are talking about two human beings pressing body parts against each other (don't judge me, I am a romantic).

Why would you require a license for a handshake?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
but do you realize that very few forms of sexuality were legal before a few decades ago?

What are you talking about. Thomas Jefferson had several lovers (including a married woman). Ben Franklin had many more. People have been having sex since the beginning of time. Yes there have been periodic attempts to regulate sex. They have generally failed because people like to have sex.

I don't think there is any form of sexuality that wasn't done legally long before the US was created.

There were laws against adultery and even pre-marital sex, I believe. Obviously there were laws against homosexuality and heterosexual 'sodomy.' Basically there were laws against everything except procreative sex between married partners, because that had to be allowed for the sake of making children.

Quote:

A handshake is a normal human interaction between two willing human participants. So is sex. We are not talking about driving here. We are talking about two human beings pressing body parts against each other (don't judge me, I am a romantic).

My judgment or lack thereof is irrelevant. Pathogens lack morality and yet they will judge your sexual behavior by infecting you. Partners disappointed with unmet expectations in their relationships with you will also judge you, even when those partners forgive you in their minds, i.e. because the heart doesn't submit to the mind.

Until you learn to see sexuality clearly for all the negative effects it has, you can't even begin to imagine what 'judgment' really means; and why/how the pleasure you get cannot come without consequences.

Quote:

Why would you require a license for a handshake?

You can wash your hands after shaking hands.

What you can't do is unbreathe the air you've shared while shaking hands.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

If my willing partner pulls down his or her underwear and bends over, my penis will go into either a vagina or an anus. When I am finished, I zip up my pants. There is very little chance my penis has come into contact with the virus (which is concentrated in saliva or snot). I can wash my hands, and the risk of me catching a respiratory disease from this activity is pretty low (as long as I don't touch my face with my penis.)

When I give someone a hug, or shake their hand, the chance is much higher that I will either breath in droplets or get virus on my hands from their nose or moth and touch my face. Kissing your grandmother is far more dangerous than sexual intercourse.

I don't get your obsession with sex. This is a respiratory virus. Sex has nothing to do with it.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't get your obsession with sex.

You're two side of the same coin, LL's prurience is because they're not getting any, while you just want to gross people out with details of your own sex life.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

At least you are ""entering" a valid new research area. Have we really established that its ONLY transmissible via snot shots or can it be recruited via a blood boundary like capillaries?

We only very recently learnt that its duration on surfaces can be around 15 hours

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

At least you are ""entering" a valid new research area. Have we really established that its ONLY transmissible via snot shots or can it be recruited via a blood boundary like capillaries?

We only very recently learnt that its duration on surfaces can be around 15 hours

Can I volunteer for that study?

I haven't heard if the virus can really be transmitted by surfaces. No one seems to give a clear answer on that. They say that it is "viable" on surfaces, but they also say the main mode of transmission is aerosol.

I don't think there is enough research to say if this is really a transmission route.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Hi Izzy.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think there is enough research to say if this is really a transmission route.

Social distancing is two metres, and you’re not going to fool anyone into thinking you’re King Dick.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

the "remaining viable" on a surface is now around 3 DAYS. Of course thats a pathway to infection. If you touch a sthats infective and then you touch mucous membranes in eyes, nose, or mouth, it is a pathway. Its no different than having an intermdiate HOST.

I was watching this Korean doctor who is in charge of S Koreas covid response .He was shocked at how , in the US , some politicians seem to be making policy and most of it is ineffective.
He was asked whether "face masks are effective in stopping airborne and particulate infection"

"Of course" he quickly remarked. "The very few countries that DONT recommend their use are those whose cases of infection are still increasing at increasing rates. We all wear masks in surgery or patient interactions, Isnt that proof enough"??

2 Replies

@livinglava,

As long as you are at least six feet apart you can engage in casual sex

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

the "remaining viable" on a surface is now around 3 DAYS. Of course thats a pathway to infection. If you touch a sthats infective and then you touch mucous membranes in eyes, nose, or mouth, it is a pathway. Its no different than having an intermdiate HOST.

I was watching this Korean doctor who is in charge of S Koreas covid response .He was shocked at how , in the US , some politicians seem to be making policy and most of it is ineffective.
He was asked whether "face masks are effective in stopping airborne and particulate infection"

"Of course" he quickly remarked. "The very few countries that DONT recommend their use are those whose cases of infection are still increasing at increasing rates. We all wear masks in surgery or patient interactions, Isnt that proof enough"??

My current concern is whether a prolonged culture of social distancing and face-mask use will prevent the spread of normal pathogens that are easily dealt with by the immune system and thus prevent the immune system from overreacting to minor threats with life-threatening allergic reactions, airway swelling to the point of choking, etc.

Some viruses have to get in so that you can develop antibodies. The body has its own system for vaccinating itself against infections, so that system has to be in good function or else you would become completely dependent on face masks and vaccine injections and medical treatment.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

you miss the point. We can isolate the pathogen TO DEATH. Relying on the immune system to"cure" is kinda what we dont wanna do because while the death rate will be around 0.2% we can jack up the rate (like in Italy) where a concerted "Do nothing" the early infection resulted in a death rate that is double.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you miss the point. We can isolate the pathogen TO DEATH. Relying on the immune system to"cure" is kinda what we dont wanna do because while the death rate will be around 0.2% we can jack up the rate (like in Italy) where a concerted "Do nothing" the early infection resulted in a death rate that is double.

I haven't seen enough information on how other seasonal flus work to formulate an opinion on how coronavirus differs from them.

Certainly I want to avoid transmitting viruses that are exceptionally harmful/lethal, but I am also afraid that we could end up isolating too many normal pathogens to death, and that would make us collectively less well-prepared to fight off normal infections, as healthy populations do.

Ever since they've started promoting flu shots, I've noticed stranger symptoms than before. It used to be you'd start sneezing or coughing, come down with low-grade fever, and after a couple days of watery nasal discharge, your snot would start thickening up again and you'd know you were recovering.

Now there are always strange combinations of symptoms and it's harder to know what you have, what it's going to do, and how long it will last, and when it's going away.

I think this is because people aren't contracting and spreading those normal flus that used to dominate the air before flu shots, and so our tissues have become breeding grounds for all the new pathogens that aren't prevented by the flu shot.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"Of course" he quickly remarked. "The very few countries that DONT recommend their use are those whose cases of infection are still increasing at increasing rates. We all wear masks in surgery or patient interactions, Isnt that proof enough"??

our local health unit put out a call for masks to be made. not for surgery or anything (though there are people 3d printing shields and the like for the hospital) but for general hospital use. The Sewing Army (now a FB group with membership from all around) has made 1000's of masks. It's been entertaining and wonderful to see the fabrics and notions people are cannibalizing. Superhero fabric, curtains, old sheets (surprisingly desired as mask fabric), pipe cleaners, hair ribbons. The big learn - traditional masks that attach around ears are horrible for this as 24 hour use literally breaks down skin behind ears. Now we're learning how to make long head ties out of torn up t-shirts. Sort of scary to read all the messages from people like palliative homecare workers asking for masks as they're not in the pipeline to get any proper masks.

stay home, stand back and tie on that mask if you're out there mixing it up

0 Replies

Should Casual Sex be Prohibited as Virus Prevention?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know