I live alone and work alone. I do not have an editor who would read and judge my articles. Unlike other authors, I also do not have a wife with whom I would discuss my work.

This has its advantages and disadvantages.

The primary benefit is that I can be totally honest. I do not have to be politically correct. I am not subject to any censorship.

So, in one way, I can consider myself lucky.

But to be outside of any control can also be a handicap. Nobody can tell me reliably, which of my articles are good, and which one are not.

Sometimes, I can put down a grand idea in a few paragraphs, and everything fits. And sometimes, what I produce is off the mark.

My best pieces have all been written in a single go, from start to finish, without second thoughts. And the same is true for those pieces that are over the top or below my standard of quality.

People who do not write have little awareness of how difficult it is to judge one's own work.

It's as if an author gets desensationalized for his own sentences, just as everybody gets desensationalized for one's own odors.

This is why in a professional setting, authors have editors.

I do not have an editor. The best I can do is to reread an article after a few months, when my brain has sufficiently rewired itself. Only then can I recognize what is expressed well, and what is just quatsch.

I have introduced version numbers for all my articles. A piece with a version number 1.0 should be considered a draft. I have never even read it again after I published it. At the time I wrote it, I may have considered the piece important enough to publish it. But many of my 1.0 versions are totally rewritten after a few months.

I do want to formulate a consistent ideology for a world in which optimal sexual experience, followed by a gentle death, is recognized as guiding principle.

I cannot do this in one sitting. I sometimes work on one portion, and at other times on another portion of my ideology. As I go along, I often discover discrepancies. I try my best to make them fewer.

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.

Version 1.3, December 2003

Drugs are a viable tool of mankind to overcome, with practical means, the philosophical dilemma that in principal, it would be better to be dead than alive.

Who is against drugs (those that are currently classified as illicit)?

Parents and governments.

Parents are against illicit drugs because they want their children to continue their (the parents') procreative strategy. This means, make their parents proud, and have children who then make their parents (and grandparents) proud.

Children who achieve nothing in life, and who themselves have no children, are a loss for parents. After all the efforts and costs it has taken to raise them: nothing.

From the perspective of a young adult, it may make perfect sense to choose a path of life that ends after a short career in extremely satisfying morphine and heroin with a gentle, painless death.

From the perspective of his parents, it's a waste. Parents gain nothing from a child that chooses this kind of destiny.

Sons may die as heroes in wars, defending their country or democracy. They may die as martyrs or suicide bombers for their religion, or in protest against foreign occupation. Great for the ego of their parents, and no waste at all.

Or sons may be nothing special, but good procreators.

As long as they have offspring, the more the better, they have fulfilled their most important purpose, which is: to give grandchildren to their parents.

This is why most people are vehemently against their children becoming addicted to hard drugs, but don't mind if their parents do.

Which, once more, proves that parents have children for mostly egoistic motives.

--

Governments are always against the kind of drugs, which, for precisely this reason have become illicit.

Drugs that are a viable option for young adults to lead an unproductive life followed by an early, painless death, are totally against the interest of governments.

As children, all members of society are a cost factor. They also bind part of the productivity of their parents who typically are in their productive prime.

Once children are young adults, it's payback time. They are expected to work, earn money for themselves, and pay heavily into social security systems, be they formal or informal.

When young adults opt for hard drugs, they don't pay back. Not their parents, not society as a whole. In the contrary, they continue to be a cost factor. And a public order risk.

Governments are not against opiates and other drugs they have made illicit because these drugs would be bad for their users. These drugs have been outlawed because they are bad for the governments.

Look at the type of busybodies who typically make up the top of the executive and legislative branches of modern states. These are people of a mindset easily unveiled. Theirs typically is an ideology that derives justification for their own lives from outside their own lives. They may understand themselves as agents of a specific religion, or as working for the social good, or another irrational entity.

They work for social progress. At least that is what they claim (and even actually believe of their motives).

Of course it is a lie.

These busybodies on all levels of government primarily derive satisfaction from interfering in common affairs. Because they assume they are of value to their social units, they feel able to attach a value to their own lives, which these lives per se do not have.

It's a particular brand of escapism that lands people in government positions (unless they are after opportunities for gains through corruption). They attempt to overcome their own fear of death by claiming (in their own minds) to be important parts of social structures that ideally persist eternally.

These busybodies typically cannot accept that other, more rational contemporaries prefer to just opt out. They cannot accept that young adults do not care about the social good, don't intend to have families, are not bent towards a successful professional live, but just want to take drugs, and die early.

After all the previous elaborations you may be surprised that I myself am not a consumer of illicit drugs.

Not yet.

Because I still have another, better option.

Sexual enjoyment. Lots of it. The best sex ever.