Part II - The Devil And The Medical Corporation's Exploitation of Human Sexuality

The influence of these scientist-politicians was of late years not often on the side of liberty: the “intolerance of reason” so frequently conspicuous in the scientific specialist, the impatience with the ways of the ordinary man so characteristic of the expert, and the contempt for anything which was not consciously organized by superior minds according to a scientific blueprint were phenomena familiar in German public life for generations before they became of significance in England. And perhaps no other country provides a better illustration of the effects on a nation of a general and thorough shift of the greater part of its educational system from the “humanities” to the “realities” than Germany between 1840 and 1940. . .It was well known that particularly the scientists and engineers, who had so loudly claimed to be the leaders on the march to a new and better world, submitted more readily than almost any other class to the new tyranny. – F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.

If it were not for the silence of the medical community (hereinafter referred to as “The Medical Corporation”) it is unlikely The Sexual Revolution would have run the course it did. Rather, when we look back at our short history of sexual decline and spread of social diseases, we find that the medical community was very much ensconced in the movement. It not only played a prominent role, it was intentionally radical in that it was formed by a silent backdrop of psychologists and medical professionals who were able to throw their bulwark of learned opinion through media to convince us all that all our woes could be traced to sexual deprivation, if only we could see it and admit it.

That they remained silent about its known consequences is circumspect given the fall-out from that movement today and the scientific data available at the time, and it should come as no surprise then that psychologists and the medical community would soon reap a high return on their investment when during this period the sexually and seemingly dissatisfied patient – intent on fulfilling The Medical Corporation’s promise of a more meaningful life – increased their attendance with these professionals, resulting not only in soaring profits for mental professionals, but also medical professionals who were treating the consequences of its endeavors: sexually transmitted disease and all transient psychic illnesses related to it.

Although many at the time warned of the consequences of the movement (i.e., pregnancy, disease), their message fell on death ears because it was not only the natural inclination of us in our youth to believe that religion was all but a myth (children often do), we also had no scientific evidence (sexually transmitted disease was neither spoken about, but thought to be totally eradicated) to believe any consequences to a sexual revolution were predicated on anything other than religious fears. We concluded then that it was not modern scientific evidence that was creating an illusory fear, only faith and superstition that held us back, and thus the new promise of sexual fulfillment and self-knowledge were entirely something that only religious moral authority was keeping from us in order to control the masses.

It is no surprise then that what also reinforced this skepticism and doubt of religion was, of course, that science had promised us evidence that a progression towards a better understanding of ourselves was intrinsic to our well-being and was something that only a “new” secular authority could deliver. That science could be held competent in all domains, as it was during the sexual revolution, and so convincing as to usurp the individual's moral precept and personal accountability was - whether one chooses to accept it or not - a natural progression and one easier to understand when one now looks back on that time only 50 years later.

While we were thus hoodwinked, we must remember that The Sexual Revolution began at a time when sexually transmitted diseases were not heard of (much less spoken about) and our youth contemplated why it was that sex outside marriage was wrong, provoked as they were through media to believe that science had triumphed over the consequences of sexual immorality, and that therefore the consequences of “fornication” or “infidelity” were simply the result of over-reactive fears from religious precepts that had no relevance to our modern age, and in fact, as we were told, detrimental to us psychologically because any such "sin" was really, they said, the result of religious “guilt,” which in itself was really the greater evil. We individuals at the time contemplated this deeply and, lo and behold, there was some truth to this, which of course led us to do things that our own parents were at a loss to argue with us about. How could a parent speak of consequences at a time when evidence of consequences did not exist? Thus science succeeded at silencing the moral majority and our parents’ admonitions, and we marched freely towards what we were confident was a new and better world.

That the sexual revolution has passed and its seeds have been sown for society does not change the scientific attitude. As we now know, the lies perpetuated by science as reported by the press and The Medical Corporation’s exploitation of infectious disease continue to plague and haunt our society because of their exploitation. As The New York Times reported only a few years ago, nearly one-third of our population is chronically ill; so while we are distracted on pursuing a superior “moral course” for children and our nation, we are still loathe to consciously acknowledge that much of what we are seeing today is the result of the manipulation by science and its attempt to “organize” a people. Little wonder then that other countries ridicule us as a population of “drug addicts” addicted to pharmaceuticals. But more tragically, and coinciding with the momentum of science, the ones suffering the most from this medical attitude and exploitation are our children, who, unlike us, have no individual vantage point or reference point from where they stand in their sexual selves to compare to make right wrongs even when they sense they exist and are in fact there. How, they ask, is it done?

We as adults must accept the truth of science and preach alongside our religious dictum or individual philosophies the fact that the purported “curses” bestowed by God or Mother Nature on acts of immorality are also bestowed upon us by science. It may say it does its best to do right, but it can only go so far in satisfying collective needs and wants. Now that we are already seeking ways to apply universal medical care to all should not persuade anyone into believing that “collective” science will be passionate or sympathetic about individual needs or wants either. There is no escape from the truth that when a government is confronted with rising sexually transmitted diseases and other infections, it will do what it must to keep disease under control, and it will do so without sympathy. The arguments about “morality” have in this day thus evolved into questions of what is “just” and are borne out of necessity, and however we may personally feel about religious truth or not, when we examine the avenues God or Mother Nature sought to correct behavior, science will be forced to be brought to its knees to do also.

It is why when we speak of “immorality” and its consequences to our children, we must also talk about the greater deceits of collective thought and action and the perils that await them irrespective of their allegiance to party politics. That capitalism and individualism are superior for our own individual happiness and if preserved would transfer expectations and values into the kind of medical care we want in our society and a greater respect for what is moral for the individual – and thus respect for the individual patient – begins with recognizing the history of collective actions and decisions that science was a part. One of the ways in which this can be done is to emphasize through independent medical research how the consequences of sexual behavior will affect an individual years later, and to share with our children the harsh reality that when we speak of “medical care for all” we are actually speaking of “organization” of people; and to warn them that if they are convinced today that it is they that will be protected because of political beliefs or affiliation, they only need look at history to know that what may be true today is rarely if ever true tomorrow.