James_H
And I like to roam the land
- Joined
- May 18, 2002
- Messages
- 7,632
My theory: just as ancient societies had complex rules and rituals to prevent the spread of other diseases (see prohibitions on eating pork and shellfish - i.e. religious practices that started as health concerns, and the great detail Leviticus goes into about leprosy), they would also have complex rules regarding sexuality who you have sex with, and this would be an important factor in the development of monogamous marriage, as well as the associations non-marital sex has in many societies with sin, guilt and shame.So lots and lots of unbridled, unprotected (and unwanted) sex went on in the primal pre-civilised world that mankind eventually wrought.
Back in the earliest almost pre-human days, humanity itself became if not the most-successful, then certainly the most self-aware sexually-transmitted disease.
But surely there always were (and still are) unsought added extras, in terms of biological disease and infection conveyed via sex, as an adjunct to reproduction.
This is the nub of my point: at one point in history, by definition, people must, universally, have been absolutely-riddled with STDs/STIs. But what did that mean in that timeframe? Were people healthier? Were they invigorated somehow by 'disease'? Are humans 'meant' to have STIs? Because, our earliest forefathers must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have been infected from puberty until death. And that's almost my thesis here: STIs/STDs must have not killed-off humanity, or we wouldn't be here.
Did infection at an intrinsic level with STDs/STIs perhaps confer some level of cross-protection against modern-day ailments, such as (say) MS, asthma or worse? This is just sheer conjecture on my part, a postulation of improbable unproveable correlation.
But regardless of the unlikeliness of this vivo-vaccinating effect, the shared biological STD baseline of the human herd must, over time, have gone from being a pool, to puddles, then patches, and finally to part-pairings (I mean here the graph-trend, not any absolute isolations).
Does anyone have any informed biochemical insights on this? Surely the absence of what would've been some form of innoculative transmission would've had some resultant impact. Or is this an entirely mistaken concept to even consider?
Another sexual taboo of course is incest, which similarly leads to health problems that damage the health not only of individuals but of the community as a whole (particularly important in smaller, tribal societies). The practice of incest is in most societies proscribed by both law and social codes to prevent the results of inbreeding - what I'm proposing is that other regulations around sex (such as marriage) may also be related to social health.
On a side note, in various parts of Polynesia (eg Hawaii) STDS were absent and sexual attitudes were traditionally much more casual and promiscuous - Western sailors were very interested in this but inadvertently introduced STDs which changed things forever. I guess that my point is that without this health concern, sexual mores in a society may be quite different.
EDIT: Can't access the full article but this shows that it was known at the time that Europeans introduced STDs to the South Seas.
Last edited: