do you think they were...
std free??
shareProbably. The doc's plastic surgery machine could instantly heal wounds, so the idea of total immunization to STDs seems likely.
share
MovieChat Forums > Logan's Run (1976) Discussion > do you think they were...
I think so, but not because of anything related to the plastic surgery machine. It is a sealed, indoor society. Were there any animals, insects in there? If not, there's a chance that the bacterial and viruses that cause STD's simply would not be present. Take HIV/AIDS. Scientists posit Patient Zero was a traveler in Africa who was bitten by a tse tse fly infected with HIV/AIDS in, I believe 1976. I think this gentleman was a homosexual, and when he returned to the United States, HIV/AIDS spread first to the homosexual community through the male partners with whom he had intimate relations. Through bisexuality the disease spread to the heterosexual community. (That and intravenous drug use (dirty needles), blood transfusions, and, of course, a mother passing it onto her unborn child during pregnancy.) In the world of Logan's Run, how would anyone get bitten by a tse tse fly or infected by some other form of microbe. I also wonder if the citizens of Logan's Run were afflicted by everyday illnesses like colds and flus for the same reason.
share
Scientists posit Patient Zero was a traveler in Africa who was bitten by a tse tse fly infected with HIV/AIDS in, I believe 1976.
If insect bites are a vector for HIV/AIDS transmission, why isn't the entire world population infected by now? I have always heard that insect bites do not transmit HIV/AIDS.
Think about it. Your neighbor is some poor gay guy living with AIDS. A mosquito bites him, then flies into your yard and bites you. POW! Now you've got AIDS. If news like this was true, it would lead to a global panic.
The CDC says HIV/AIDS is not transmitted by mosquitoes, ticks or other insects. I assume tse tse flies would fall under "other insects".
share
He was traveling in a remote part of Africa in the mid-70's. (I think 1976.) He came in contact with an insect perhaps no other human had ever encountered. This is what I have always heard to be the source of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I have never heard - until now - that this was some hoax or conspiracy theory. The tse tse fly in question was not some household bug common to Europe, North America, etc. It was rare. Indeed, it probably never made it out of Africa. But it transmitted a disease (that may or may not have affected it), HIV/AIDS, to a human when it inserted its proboscis into patient zero's skin. This was the first 'dirty needle,' of the AIDS crisis.
shareAIDS jumped from Chimpanzee's to humans likely from a tribe of people that ate the Chimps. During food preparation it's easy to imagine blood from the chimp getting into a cut from the butcher.
shareThank you. That person is completely ignorant on HIV and how it's acquired. It's not transmitted by bug bites.
shareLuckily for you, you can't get it from onanism as well.
share"Onan" is Hebrew for "Vigor".🤣
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Onan.html
Apparently, it also translates to "trouble" or "sorrow."
Onanism, as detailed in the hyperlinked article you provided, refers to the withdrawal method of birth control or 'spilling the seed onto the floor at the moment supreme.' Onanism has also been broadened (perhaps through a lack of specific understanding of the biblical story from which it derives) to masturbation.
Well, my form of birth control is anal intercourse. Yeah, Onan's sin was not getting women pregnant, not masturbation per se.
shareSpecifically, Onan's sin was not getting Tamar, his sister-in-law, pregnant. Under Levirite law at the time, it was the duty of a man's brother to marry his deceased brother's widow and sire children with her. This was before things like life insurance and a female's ability to inherit property, so if a woman was widowed, she really was out-of-luck if her husband's family did not come to her aid. Once an heir is born, he could take care of his mother once he reached maturity.
Onan's sin was instead of having coitus with his widowed sister-in-law, Tamar, he used her as an object of sexual gratification. He had intercourse with her but instead of giving her his speed he 'spilt it upon the ground.' Thus, he stole his brother's fortune for his own line instead of using it to take care of Tamar and raise children with her.
There was a real concern in biblical times that women in Tamar's position would become prostitutes having no other form of subsistence if the Levirite law was not followed. Tamar did just that. In the end, she gained support from her deceased husband's father, Judah. Judah visited the brothel where Tamar worked, had sex with a veiled Tamar, finished inside, and Tamar became pregnant. As such, she and her progeny were taken care of by her husband's father (father-in law) because he sired her children.
In the end, she gained support from her deceased husband's father, Judah. Judah visited the brothel where Tamar worked, had sex with a veiled Tamar, finished inside, and Tamar became pregnant. As such, she and her progeny were taken care of by her husband's father (father-in law) because he sired her children.
Bizarre morality of the ancients, that a father would have sex with his own daughter-in-law. I'm not sure if the Bible was advocating that? Or is it just describing what happened?
share
No, I don't think the Bible was advocating that, but it might have been more common due to the sheer lack of population black then, to say nothing of the limited number of people within a specific ethnic/religious group.
The way the Bible describes it, Tamar wore a veil, so Judah had sex with her while not knowing her true identity. He looked at her as a faceless prostitute, and literally paid a heavy price for (like his son, Onan) using a woman as a sexual object. But in the end, the Levirite law was followed, and Tamar was taken care of by Judah until her and Jonah's sons (who may have been twins if memory serves) were in a position to care for their mother.
Again, the Bible did not want women in Tamar's position to be forced into prostitution because they had no other form of subsistence. In Tamar's case, that fate did come to her, but it was only temporary because the 'Judah' she slept with was a family relation thus insuring her rights under the 'estate laws' of the time.
Okay, so Judah didn't know he was having sex with his daughter-in-law.
Still, I'm wondering why Onan's sin is widely believed to be jerking off, when he was only practicing responsible contraception?
That onanism has been conflated with masturbation is an example of mass misinterpretation of the Bible. It may also be an intentional misinterpretation, or generalization, by people who have a personal abhorrence to masturbation in an attempt to use the Bible's teachings to support their abhorrence and deter others from masturbating. I think what some people are interpreting is that if Onan pulled out and spilled his seed on the floor, he must have jerked himself off when he did so. That's where they drag the masturbation into it. However, within the text of the Bible, there is no mention of that, merely that he spilled his seed upon the ground. For all we know, he was the original greatest puller-outer, and he managed to stay inside until the very last second, withdraw, and hands-free ejaculate on the ground.
In the modern era, it can and should be seen as a form of contraception. I don't know that it is the most "responsible" form of contraception, but that's another story. The problem was in biblical times, there really was no call for contraception. Sex was not an end to itself. It was a means to an end, and that end was procreation. Especially in Tamar and Onan's case, the explicit purpose behind Onan getting to have intercourse with Tamar in the first place was because Onan's brother/Tamar's husband had died. Levirite law demanded Onan sire Tamar a son so that Tamar and her children could be supported by the estate (and her son(s) would care for her when he/they reached adulthood and she reached old age.) Onan's sin was using Tamar as a sexual object. He wanted to catch a nut without giving her the seed.
Well I have to differ with you there.
If in the Bible, any ejaculation which does not bring the possibility of pregnancy is a sin, then that would apply more to masturbation than "pulling out".
So the Christian fundamentalists have it right. They drew the logical conclusion from the story. In early Judaism, masturbation was a sin which was worthy of death.
I mean obviously masturbation is more common than coitus interuptus. So it was a bigger "problem" for the Hebrews.