Of Germs, Investment Strategies, and the Breeding Habits of Naked Apes

Seems to me like any general discussion about how Homo sapiens reproduces itself, or goes through the motions thereof, generates more heat than light. Our self-imposed embargoes on obtaining knowledge of two of the most important aspects of human life, Sex and Money, might protect us from uncomfortable facts, but in the end fail the Hippocratic Oath of Social Discourse. They do us harm.

Copulation (what most people call "sex", unless they're in a context that permits the various forms of the F word - I'd rather that this one was not) has two principal long-term consequences:

1. Children
2. Disease

Both may lead to premature death. Both require major investments of time and resources on the part of those presented with them.

The very act of undressing in company implies a measure of trust - a suspension of the normal insistence on personal space, which has the purpose of protecting the person against premature death from disease or assault. "Getting it on" implies the further trust that, somehow, somebody's going to pay for the consequences. This can be paid for in coin (prostitution, in its various forms) or kind (marriage, in all of its various forms).

Promiscuity, of which prostitution is a flavor, doesn't happen unless the partners have learned to "get naked" without insisting on the usual levels of trust. And once this is learned, it is almost impossible to unlearn: "Once a john, always a john." It's tough to raise kids if you're constantly worrying whether your spouse is spending the mortgage money in the bordello, or on the skanky blonde in the office. Especially in today's context, where we think that modern medicine has cut the cost of the diseases associated with copulation, and therefore we can get away with it. Though I don't suggest making that point in the vicinity of anyone with AIDS.

There are times and places in which the benefits of promiscuity have been perceived to outweigh the risks. The 19th century American West was one such time and place; women were scarce, and the "house of ill repute" was not only legal but gained a measure of respect - or haven't any of you TV Land viewers worked out how Miss Kitty kept body and soul together in Gunsmoke? Oh, and incidentally, the institution is still legal in Nevada, or at least it was last time I looked - and social scientists have not been shy about using this circumstance in their investigations of human sexual behavior.

Island cultures often also practiced promiscuity. One of the reasons the men of the Bounty mutinied was their desire to remain on Tahiti where sex was more freely available than in England. European explorers on Tahiti and elsewhere found themselves in a major moral quandary when the rulers of these places offered them their wives for the night. In such places, sexually transmitted diseases were essentially nonexistent (it was by contact with filthy Europeans that they learned, sadly, their mistake in this regard), but the consequences of close inbreeding (physical and mental deformities in offspring) were only too obvious. Thus it was considered a favor for visitors to contribute their genes to the places they visited. Obviously, these people knew nothing of genes or the science of genetics, but they somehow understood the principle.

In all this, we might perhaps see why promiscuity is alternately condemned and tolerated in that most misunderstood of books, the Bible. Canaanite religion practiced promiscuity and prostitution (both heterosexual and homosexual); Yahwist religion (i.e., that of "God"), did not. Most of the time, anyway. One could argue that Canaan fell to the Hebrew armies under Joshua son of Nun because they were healthy and trusted each other, while the Canaanites were unhealthy and mistrustful. Of course, sex in the Yahwist tradition is severely limited, which doesn't sell so well in a wealthy culture, which Israel and Judah eventually became. So these countries progressively embraced Canaanite religious practices - and then fell to alien armies.

The moralists - which include the final editors of much of the Bible's Old Testament - may be drawing the right lesson for the wrong (usually selfish and manipulative) reasons. But I don't think that diminishes the force of the lesson. I know I won't be embracing promiscuous behavior anytime soon. No matter how hungry I get, or how luscious that skanky blonde might be. At the end of the day, sex without full mutual trust isn't worth having.

  - O Ceallaigh