in

Covid and sex: will they also ban “tinder”?

A loyal reader tells me that lately he has witnessed several debates in his environment regarding whether “flirting” applications should be banned to avoid social contact. Supporters of the prohibition point out that it would be consistent with the rest of the limitations that we suffer. Detractors argue that such contact is inevitable and essential. Faced with these debates, my reader asks me, will they also suppress ‘tinder’?

To find a reliable answer, it is enough to see how our health authorities have been treating the other great contemporary pandemic, AIDS, a disease that depends more on the specific contact that ‘flirting applications’ favor than Covid 19. In this regard, we must start from that, according to no lesser part of science, the best way to combat AIDS is to observe a triple pathway known as ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom): 1st promote abstinence from sexual intercourse (delaying the age of onset , reducing promiscuity etc), 2nd promote fidelity, so that relationships with ‘non-partners’ are limited (which we usually say now) and 3rd promote the use of condoms. The ABC of AIDS would then be similar to that of Covid in strategy, saving the differences between the two diseases: avoiding contacts, reducing oneself to cohabitants and protecting oneself with an instrument (masks and PPE in the case of Covid).

Well, our health authorities have always considered that condoms are enough for AIDS. Something like if for the Covid they said that the mask is enough. And so, we have attended campaigns that favored sex at an early age, while nothing effective has been done against prostitution and pornography. Why? Because one of the political foundations of the present is sexual liberation, the “non-repressive” civilization suggested by Marcuse (‘Eros and civilization’), or the ‘fly rights’ (which I would say of Prada). And, having established that foundation, any form of repression will always be frowned upon. And if several lives have to be taken ahead, it will go through it with the same ease as euthanasia is carried out or more than two million legal abortions have been performed in recent years in the Spain of the 78 regime.

Considering these fundamental principles of our political culture, I can answer the reader that I do not see foreseeable that they will suppress ‘tinder’ and other similar instruments. And not so much because politicians are an evil caste that wants to turn us all into vicious beings at the service of our instincts, but because they do not dare to contradict those instincts because of the electoral effects it could have.

Now, when one verifies the effects that ‘tinder’ and other similar applications can have on Covid or AIDS, one cannot help but wonder if we are on the right track as a society. Is it reasonable to accept the curfew, the elimination of the public square as a space for interrelation, the suppression of worship or the dignity of dying in company; and not accept that they suppress ‘tinder’? The answer will depend on the importance given to sexual intercourse over other exchanges. But it really is a question that must be asked, and it is a challenge to see whether or not we should consider the health consequences of the “non-repressive” civilization in which we live.