fractalnavel

decoupling artificial links between sex and relationships is a good thing.  using sex as a carrot in a perverse attempt to enforce monogamy is plain silly.  besides, that's not the origin of that cultural practice anyway.  nor are certain kinds of relationships a prerequisite for healthy sex.  you can have good sexless relationships, and you can have good relationshipless sex.  yes, bad variants are possible as well.  but their forced combination is no guarantee of anything.  aside from evolutionary imperatives, the association is near meaningless, beyond the trust necessary for safety.  and transcending received “wisdom” by interceding intellectually is what humanity is all about, indeed, all of existence. of course, if you're of the mystical mindset you're blind to all of this, using a warped sort of illusory rationalization to view animal instincts and their resulting behavioral anachronisms as god's will.

we can, however, do a lot of damage by screwing with the transition from mysticism to rationalism.  the healthy thing to realize is that we can do just as much to ease the transition.  i doubt that will happen, as the level of “choice” we both have available and are willing to exercise is minimal.  that's how we're built too.

as for diseases, pregnancies and the like, it's our attitudes that need adjusting, not the phenomena.  the best thing those self-proclaimed morally superior types could do to eliminate abortion, for example, would be to create an environment of belonging and acceptance without their holier than thou moral overtones, or worse, outright retribution.

a note on positioning:

lest you think i'm just going after conservatives with this one, the flip side of the coin are those with pretenses towards being well-meaning who in the process also destroy what they are nominally after.  but i'll leave that for later.  there is much more complexity in this realm of thought, making conservatives an easier mark for both supporters and detractors.  part of the arguments here would, in simplistic form, resemble the rants of ayn rand against the left.  i'll give her credit for pointing out, in extreme dramatic form, possible dangers, but her analysis was superficial, as were her counter-recommendations (what people support as objectivism).

so, although i'd like to refocus on what's wrong with the non-newsmaking_power_groups_of_the_moment, the timing would be poor.  it's probably best to save the gadflying for when it's appropriiate, which is to oppose abuses by any power. this of course also means that i do not support the excesses of the opposition.  do not mistake a limited perspective on context for reality.