God Ends STDs

[alias x]

Well, I was thinking of a story that starts out with a flash of light appearing in everyone's house and a voice saying, "I am God! I have decided people are not having enough sex for fun, so I have eliminated STDs." Of course the overly religious people would claim it was a scheme by the devil, but the more pragmatic people would interpret it as being from god, since it involves healing people. And the overly religious people who claimed the devil did it are the same people who claimed god made stds, so most people would be skeptical of their claims (since they imply the devil is stronger). And a lot of people would claim it was aliens, of course. Still, why would god do that over doing other things like telling people to stop killing people, if sex wasn't important.

Of course a message from god would cause mass chaos. Rapists would start claiming they were following god's word, people would start establishing nakedness colonies (as opposed to nudity colonies).

I'm sure there's a story or two in here somewhere...but one that someone else should write, not me. This idea is presented as one that I think would yield an interesting story, not as something I absolutely must see written.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Why does it have to be God? Maybe, more realistically, you could have a cure found for all STDs, one at a time. Maybe a futuristic society where STDs have been wiped out as a priority, because the State deemed it in the best interests of the country to eliminate any obstacles to procreation of more taxpayers. After all, a zero birthrate is national death in a few generations.

 

[only_more_so]

Why does it have to be God? Maybe, more realistically, you could have a cure found for all STDs, one at a time. Maybe a futuristic society where STDs have been wiped out as a priority, because the State deemed it in the best interests of the country to eliminate any obstacles to procreation of more taxpayers. After all, a zero birthrate is national death in a few generations.

No, it has to be God, otherwise the story doesn't work as described. It is the chaos caused by mass rauchiness. People who were afraid to have sex for moral reasons might start acting on their urges. People who were afraid of STD would start fucking like rabbits.

Prostitution would be rampant. Girls would be given the pill in Jr. High school (or on their 18th birthday in Literotica).

Of course, pregnancy would be the last STD! At least, I've heard it described in the most cynical fashion that way. Think about it, sex causes a parasite to grow inside the woman!

 

[FazilKotuk]

No, it has to be God, otherwise the story doesn't work as described. It is the chaos caused by mass rauchiness. People who were afraid to have sex for moral reasons might start acting on their urges. People who were afraid of STD would start fucking like rabbits.

Prostitution would be rampant. Girls would be given the pill in Jr. High school (or on their 18th birthday in Literotica).

Of course, pregnancy would be the last STD! At least, I've heard it described in the most cynical fashion that way. Think about it, sex causes a parasite to grow inside the woman!

Pregnancy was always the least of my worries, but that's just me. I'm very much in favor of free love and all. I just wish that there were no damn STDs to get in the way of enlightened procreation without reference to marriage. The ordo natura and all.

Well, it can still work, but only in a context of group marriage. That is my ideal. Anyway, fascinating idea, for certain. Very clever, to have the architect of unnatural prudery subvert it himself.

 

[emap]

Fazil god never said thou shalt only lay with thy wife or husband and no other, the bible has a similar idea yes, however the bible was not written by god, man wrote it.

Also if you look closely, you will notice the only thing it says a woman can't do is lay with a man not her husband, does not say anywhere that a man can not have more than one wife, something the Mormons noticed and did until ten years ago now I think.

Well there are a couple towns still practicing bigotry, though they are getting rather the short end of the stick, not that these towns work terribly well anyway.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Fazil god never said thou shalt only lay with thy wife or husband and no other, the bible has a similar idea yes, however the bible was not written by god, man wrote it.

Also if you look closely, you will notice the only thing it says a woman can't do is lay with a man not her husband, does not say anywhere that a man can not have more than one wife, something the Mormons noticed and did until ten years ago now I think.

Well there are a couple towns still practicing bigotry, though they are getting rather the short end of the stick, not that these towns work terribly well anyway.

I am well aware. I was facetiously holding his divine feet to the fire for not contradicting his fan club.

 

[only_more_so]

Well there are a couple towns still practicing bigotry, though they are getting rather the short end of the stick, not that these towns work terribly well anyway.

Ummm... Did you mean bigamy? Because there are tons of towns that still practice bigotry.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Ummm... Did you mean bigamy? Because there are tons of towns that still practice bigotry.

And it's polygamy. Bigamy is when you lie to the women or men about it.

 

[Shendude]

Also if you look closely, you will notice the only thing it says a woman can't do is lay with a man not her husband, does not say anywhere that a man can not have more than one wife, something the Mormons noticed and did until ten years ago now I think.

1. While polygamy is ALLOWED, it is strongly discouraged by implication.

2. It was over a century ago, I think. One of the conditions of Utah statehood.

On topic, I like it.

 

[FazilKotuk]

1. While polygamy is ALLOWED, it is strongly discouraged by implication.

2. It was over a century ago, I think. One of the conditions of Utah statehood.

On topic, I like it.

2. That is correct. 1890, in fact, with the Woodruff Declaration that suspended polygamy, though it never permanently abolished the institution in a technical sense. It has simply fallen into disfavor and disuse since 1890.

1. That is probably a rabbinical interpretation, but it's as good as any other, I suppose. It is, however, subjective, that's all.

 

[Shendude]

2. That is correct. 1890, in fact, with the Woodruff Declaration that suspended polygamy, though it never permanently abolished the institution in a technical sense. It has simply fallen into disfavor and disuse since 1890.

Ah, thank you.

1. That is probably a rabbinical interpretation, but it's as good as any other, I suppose. It is, however, subjective, that's all.

Actually, given that, insofar as EVERY SINGLE polygamous marriage in the Bible was on some level dysfunctional, it should be kinda obvious.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Ah, thank you.

The study of Mormonism is a kind of hobby of mine. Consequence of having a dad who was a Baptist minister and viewed them as the competition.

Actually, given that, insofar as EVERY SINGLE polygamous marriage in the Bible was on some level dysfunctional, it should be kinda obvious.

That's an understandable inference, I must concede. The only exception that I can think of was that most of David's wives (Michal aside) didn't seem to give him any trouble. His concubines, however, slept with Absalom. Well, there was that mess with Bathsheba. Guess it really IS good to be king.

 

[alias x]

Ah, thank you.


Actually, given that, insofar as EVERY SINGLE polygamous marriage in the Bible was on some level dysfunctional, it should be kinda obvious.

On the other hand, a lot of the relationships in the bible were disfunctional. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[emap]

Heck the bible itself is dysfunctional, contradicts itself several times.

As for Utah saying it's legal or not I don't know, probably didn't because the only church that would do it in the US is Mormon and they are rather closeted in doing marriages, have to be Mormon's to be married in a Mormon church.

I do however know that the Mormon church would do polyamy marriages until ten fifteen years ago now, not terribly sure it's been a while since I saw the news report.

Living in Arizona leads to knowing these things, lots of Mormons here, though most of the multiple wife families are in Utah, there is at least one town here in Arizona that did the same or still do, unclear on that part, I only know of them because their leader was doing all sorts of illegal and rather nasty things, led the cops on a merry chase for some 7 years I think.

Pat of the reason I don't like multiple wife families, they aren't families just a bunch of selective sluts who don't get enough sex.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Heck the bible itself is dysfunctional, contradicts itself several times.

As for Utah saying it's legal or not I don't know, probably didn't because the only church that would do it in the US is Mormon and they are rather closeted in doing marriages, have to be Mormon's to be married in a Mormon church.

I do however know that the Mormon church would do polyamy marriages until ten fifteen years ago now, not terribly sure it's been a while since I saw the news report.

Living in Arizona leads to knowing these things, lots of Mormons here, though most of the multiple wife families are in Utah, there is at least one town here in Arizona that did the same or still do, unclear on that part, I only know of them because their leader was doing all sorts of illegal and rather nasty things, led the cops on a merry chase for some 7 years I think.

Pat of the reason I don't like multiple wife families, they aren't families just a bunch of selective sluts who don't get enough sex.

Not the official church, it isn't true of. That's FLDS. Regular LDS stopped plural marriage ages ago.

As for polygamous families....some are families. Some aren't. There's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy of either sort, plural wives or plural husbands, if consenting adults only are involved in the marriage. To me, the ideal is two husbands and two wives, in a group marriage. But that's just me. Well, that or a husband, a transgender wife, and two genetically female wives. But that's a personal preference, a kind of Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice thing.

 

[Monazwx]

Well, I was thinking of a story that starts out with a flash of light appearing in everyone's house and a voice saying, "I am God! I have decided people are not having enough sex for fun, so I have eliminated STDs." Of course the overly religious people would claim it was a scheme by the devil, but the more pragmatic people would interpret it as being from god, since it involves healing people. And the overly religious people who claimed the devil did it are the same people who claimed god made stds, so most people would be skeptical of their claims (since they imply the devil is stronger). And a lot of people would claim it was aliens, of course. Still, why would god do that over doing other things like telling people to stop killing people, if sex wasn't important.

Of course a message from god would cause mass chaos. Rapists would start claiming they were following god's word, people would start establishing nakedness colonies (as opposed to nudity colonies).

I have a bit of a problem with the bit in bold, but the rest is relatively solid. I'm wondering whether this story can center around a tempted pastor. Of course, in the end, the devil would be behind it all . . .

 

[alias x]

I have a bit of a problem with the bit in bold, but the rest is relatively solid. I'm wondering whether this story can center around a tempted pastor. Of course, in the end, the devil would be behind it all . . .

That comment was more as a mention of some of the resultant chaos. I don't consider this to be a framework for an NC story.

Personally, I think it works best if it is left unsaid whether it was really god or the devil (or something/one else) who removed STDs. I envision no interaction with the supernatural whatsoever beyond the initial curing and claim that it was done by god.

I do think a tempted priest would work quite well as a possible direction to take this in.

 

[TitianaPeaks]

Or a tempted youth minister.......

But if you MUST go with God and declarations, I'd go with God condoning birth control, just to throw the Catholic hierarcy off-kilter.

 

[FazilKotuk]

Or a tempted youth minister.......

But if you MUST go with God and declarations, I'd go with God condoning birth control, just to throw the Catholic hierarcy off-kilter.

I'd have God appointing two prophets, one a notorious womanizer and the other a flaming homosexual. That should cause a reaction from both fundies and radical feminazis, too. PC and would-be Inquisitors alike would have a lot to explain away.

 

[TitianaPeaks]

I'd have God appointing two prophets, one a notorious womanizer and the other a flaming homosexual. That should cause a reaction from both fundies and radical feminazis, too. PC and would-be Inquisitors alike would have a lot to explain away.

Did you say Femininazi??? Are you a RUSH baby???

 

[FazilKotuk]

Did you say Femininazi??? Are you a RUSH baby???

No. But I think that the term applies to the far left femmies. The gender feminists, as opposed to moderate, true-egalitarian feminists. I wouldn't apply the label of "feminazi" to Camilla Paglia, for instance, and she's a feminist. She's just not the type that wants to ban sex and porn, as well as turn the country into a matriarchal police state.

 

[Ran4]

Could work, make all the good guys atheist

 

[sirhugs]

A Twist

What if the Instrument of the cure was one guy with a "magic cock".... only women who fuck him are innoculated - they can then cure/innoculate males. Fun too finding out if oral doasge works.

 

[FazilKotuk]

What if the Instrument of the cure was one guy with a "magic cock".... only women who fuck him are innoculated - they can then cure/innoculate males. Fun too finding out if oral doasge works.

Very nice idea....I like it. But why are you in a state of celibacy?

 

[sirhugs]

Very nice idea....I like it. But why are you in a state of celibacy?

because that way I can pretend it is voluntary?