Version 3.2, November 2003

There really is just one reason why we may sensibly choose to be alive rather than dead - the moments during sexual intercourse when we forget the senselessness of existence because we are inundated in an ocean of sexual desire and satisfaction.

Feuilleton writers who lament the decline of the West because pharmaceutical companies focus part of their attention on developing lifestyle drugs such as Viagra instead of concentrating on finding remedies for some strange diseases, are essentially wrong. For satisfying sex really is of central relevance.

Substitute satisfaction is no substitute for satisfaction. All entertainment is just a waste of time.

Sexual intercourse is not entertainment. It's a deeply philosophical undertaking. During the moment of orgasm we intuitively know more about life than can be learned from hours of meditation or the digestion of philosophical tomes.

Any living human being is just a lump of molecular compounds, a result of the chemical characteristics of the carbon atom. We are victims of nature, tricked into existence by evolution. Consciousness is a faux pas of evolution, as consciousness can only result in the revelation that it would be better never to have been born.

However, the idea of suicide is self-defeating, as the rules of evolution do not only apply to the species but also in the realm of ideas. Any school of thought advocating suicide logically cannot prevail on the face of the earth, as its disciples were to disappear by own choice.

As each of us is just a simmering biochemical soup, we are subject to specific spicing. To avoid boiling over, the spicing obviously has to be done gently. Lifestyle drugs are a good idea, but they have to be applied carefully.

Nevertheless, to get the right taste for life is not only a matter of metaphysics but also of pharmacology. For many men, Viagra is philosophically more relevant than Spinoza.

Death

Apart from good sex, a gentle death really is the only other legitimate concern in life. All other matters are second-rate topics.

I do not advocate suicide. The neurological wiring of our minds makes it very difficult to reach a decision to commit suicide. This doesn't mean that we would be glad to be alive. For every ordinary person, the potential for suffering is so much greater than the potential for joy, that in general, it would be better never to have been born.

The conclusion that it would be better not to have been born is not identical with a decision to commit suicide, at least not for as long as we are healthy.

Most people make too few preparations for the most important event in life, which is the cessation of life. This includes the common attitude of not even thinking about death. We should discuss death once we are capable to reason, but not on the basis of those religions that attempt reasoning death away with promises of an eternal life in paradise.

Death is a very individual end of a personality, and there is nothing of what we consider our ego that would survive the moment of a person's physical death. It is not logically valid to say that, while the eternal life of a person's soul cannot be scientifically proven, it can also not be proven that there is no such eternal life of a person's soul. The probability that a nothing will not leave traces is much greater than the probability that a something will not leave traces. Therefore, if there are no traces, it is reasonable to consider a nothing, rather than a something.

While it is irrelevant for the individual what happens when he is dead, the event of dying is of utmost importance to an individual life. Some authors, such as Timothy Leary, have proclaimed dying the ultimate experience in life, an event that brings enlightenment and can be spent in joy (and not just by making a show out of it).

But dying can be sheer horror. And the probability that it will be horror rather than joy is so much greater that, thank you, we opt for a rather neutral setting. Dying in one's sleep, for example.

European and American men who come to Asia for sexual gratifications typically have little awareness of the Asian hierarchy of sexual market value, and of how deeply ingrained it is in Asian societies. Much more than in Europe or North America, sexual market value in Asia depends on factors other than beauty in women and age in men.

For women, a major aspect is sexual freshness. Throughout Asia, the highest sexual market value is attached to virgins from age 15, who are living with their parents and so far have only gone to school. In many Asian societies, their sexual market value is so high that they are normally available only to young men who are willing to go for a marriage, supported by both families.

As girls grow older, their sexual market value declines, even if the keep on staying with their parents (and remain virgins).

In comparison to 18-year olds who go to school and live with their parents, 18-year olds who no longer go to school, but work, or those who live in apartments in big cities, whether they work or go to school, have a lower sexual market value, as their freshness is questionable.

There is a very definite fall in the sexual market value of women who have been married and now are divorced or widows. And there again is a steep decline when they have given birth.

But among these, those who have work and an orderly income are still regarded higher than those who have no job, and whose only choice is to rely on finding a man to help make ends meet.

Prostitutes anywhere in Asia have the lowest sexual market value, though those whose virginity is on the block can ask for a high price once. It only takes a few weeks for their sexual market value to drop sharply.

Obviously, younger prostitutes get more customers, and ask for higher prices, but prostitutes are prostitutes, and even just as girlfriends (not talking about wives), their sexual market value is at the bottom of the scale.

Now enter Western men into the equation. In Western societies, especially in Europe, the sexual market value of women is less hierarchical. What counts in Europe is a beautiful face, and a sexy body. The age of a woman plays less a role, and as long as she doesn't have an infectious disease from it, it matters less how promiscuous she has been.

Furthermore, Europeans typically think that in an ideal match, the woman is some two to seven years younger than the man. This means that even women in their forties can still expect a sexual partnership if they aim at men in their fifties, and they could even end up with a reasonably wealthy one.

You'll have to look for a long time in Asia to find a rich man in his fifties marrying a woman in her forties. Rich Asian men in their fifties will marry young women in their twenties.

For in Asia, not only does the sexual market value of women (but not of men) relate strongly to their age and the degree of sexual inexperience; the sexual market value of men also is often determined simply by his economic status. For this reason alone, older European men will always find their sexual market value increased if they move to Asia, while older Asian women always experience an increase in sexual market value when they move to a Western country.

Divorced Asian women in their forties, when they stay in Asia, have either made their luck previously and then can be with a man who values the opportunity to marry a rich woman, or they will have to be content with a low-class male, or they stay unattached.

In a number of Asian countries with comparatively high divorce rates, Western men have a very easy time making live-in arrangements with local women... who all are divorcees, or widows, or have otherwise (been) separated from their husbands.

Western men in partnerships with local women in these countries often have the wrong impression that it is rather accidental that their women have been in previous marriages, and they think that in principle, they could have found single girls or women, too. But they are wrong: in these countries, where they can easily find a divorcee as partner, they would have a very hard time, indeed, to qualify for a previously unmarried woman.

I don't mind seeing other Western men with local divorcees, or even wit ex-prostitutes. But my personal choice, definitely, are young women who have not been previously married.

Yes, one can go for previously unmarried women in Asia (who definitely are not prostitutes), if one knows where to go to. The member area provides definite information about what to realistically aim for in different countries.

As humans, we are rightfully proud of our capability to engage in philosophical contemplation. On the other hand, the effect of philosophical contemplation on decisions of how we conduct our lives is often overestimated. Indeed, our opinions, and whole belief systems, typically depend heavily on the modes of production, rather than what we regard as our independent intellect.

Let's take sexual morals. We assume that our sexual morals are primarily dependent on our metaphysical outlook, or esoteric systems such as religions. In Islam, sexual intercourse outside marriage is considered a crime against God, while murder is one just against a fellow human. And in Christianity, marriage is a sacrament, which gives it divine character.

In a non-religious setting, modern society punishes sexual transgressions more severely than other crimes. This only makes sense on the base of special moral considerations.

However, sexual morals, just as all forms of ideological superstructures, depend far more on the modes of production of human societies than on philosophical insight.

One aspect of particular importance is the degree to which a human society is capable to produce the absence of sexually transmitted diseases. Diseases, caused by pathogens, are a fact of nature. The capability of human societies to prevent or to cure them depends on the modes of production.

In this respect, the productive capabilities of traditional societies were very limited. They knew how to ammeliorate symptoms with herbs. Compared with the productive capabilities of modern societies (which not only can properly diagnose diseases but also cure them with antibiotics and the like), the modes of production of traditional societies were very limited indeed.

Throughout history, a high degree of monogamy, enforced by the state or religions, did have undeniable advantages because general libertinage would have left much of a society crippled by sexually transmitted diseases.

Sexually transmitted diseases, in this context, are not restricted to classic venereal disease such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia. For a historic perspective, one will have to include pests such as scabies and other diseases that are transmitted through close physical contact, whether sexual or not.

Scabies, caused by itch mites that are too small to be seen by the naked eye, would have reached epidemic proportions in any sexually liberal society much faster than gonorrhea or syphilis, and the disturbing factor likely was or would have been much graver.

Scabies is not primarily transmitted by sexual intercourse, but by plain skin contact, which, however, is most likely to occur between adults when they have sexual intercourse.

On the other hand, I wonder whether the Catholic approach (not to get fully undressed during sexual intercourse) has to do more with putting up a barrier against scabies rather than the devil.

Intense skin contact of a minute or two is enough to transmit scabies from one human host to another. Once on a human host, the whole body will sooner or later be covered with pimple-like eruptions causing an unbearable itch.

Nobody can withstand the scabies itch without scratching, thus causing a second lawyer of infection, this time bacterial and fungal.

People don't die from scabies, the "seven-year itch". But they can die from the bacterial infection that constant scratching induces.

The epidemiological control of scabies also always was much more difficult than of classic venereal disease such as gonorrhea or syphilis, both of which require genital contact. Scabies actually will not only affect two sexual partners, but immediately most of their private environments. It's usually not a single person who is infected, but a whole household.

If a household's teenage daughter has sexual intercourse with an infected outside man, than her mother and father, and her brothers and sisters, and their children, and the in-laws, will likely all be infected within days, and it may be weeks before symptoms occur. The danger is all the greater the poorer the family, and the more crowded the family home. Most of those infected will not or would not have died for years, but would have been miserable with the big itch until their death.

While the disease can be treated today, in a historic setting scabies and other sexually transmitted diseases, rather than philosophical contemplation, lead to restrictive sexual morals. People did not adopt monogamous morals out of philosophical contemplation or piety. Rather, they became monogamous in order to escape sexually transmitted disease of epidemical proportion, and then subscribed to congruent religious or philosophical systems because that looked so much more noble than blaming it on sexually transmitted diseases. Their sexual morals were, and are, but an ideological superstructure for the lack of productive capabilities to control sexually transmitted diseases (a deficiency of the modes of production).

That pious men who indeed avoided all physical contact, and never were naked, were likely to remain free of scabies and other sexually transmitted disease was taken as perfect proof that a certain god meant us to be abstinent, or at least monogamous.

(The following are remarks added in October 2006.)

If we want to create a new society in which men and women can pursue optimal sexual satisfaction much more freely than in previous societies, the control of sexually transmitted diseases, from AIDS to scabies, is of great importance.

To keep sexually transmitted diseases out of societies isn't just important for the general health of a population. It does indeed have metaphysical implications because keeping sexually transmitted diseases at an absolute minimum also pulls the carpet from under the feet of anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists who argue that AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are a God-sent punishment for free sex.

AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases so perfectly match the reasoning of religious anti-sexual lunatics that I have always doubted the seriousness of governments led by Christian fundamentalists to find a cure for AIDS, the only major sexually transmitted diseases that current science cannot heal. AIDS just suits their moral agenda too well for them to be interested in its control.

If the proliferation of sexually transmitted diseases effects the curtailing of sexual freedom, both directly and because it serves as an excuse for anti-sexual government policies, then, logically, the control of sexually transmitted diseases is likely to enhance sexual freedom.

That more control means more freedom sounds like an anachronism to all those who believe that less, or weak, government per se means more freedom. But personal freedom doesn't depend on whether government is weak or whether government is strong. It depends on whether government is based on an ideology of granting optimal personal freedom to the citizens it rules, or not.

And a strong government with an ideological commitment of implementing as much personal freedom as possible in an as safe as possible environment is still our best bet for a life of pursuing optimal sexual satisfaction.

That only a strong government will be capable of keeping a society free of sexual diseases, even if there is a high level of promiscuity, is just one argument that speaks in favor or strong government.