YourTango is your community for love, sex, dating, and relationship advice. Community | Feedback
User login
  1. I forgot my password!
Logging you in, please wait...
Login Sign Up

Unsafe Sex a Sign of Commitment?

Some young people see going condomless as "engagement 2.0."

Last week NPR aired a radio essay by youth commentator Pendarvis Harshaw calling sex without a condom "engagement 2.0." Harshaw said that for his generation, going bare shows "trust, commitment and the prospect of a shared future." Today Boinkology highlighted the heated debated this segment generated, both on the NPR comment board and other sites.

From the NPR comment board:

"That had to be one of the most horrifying things I have ever heard."

"Make one mistake, one strays from being faithful and now TWO of you have AIDS."

"NO! NO! NO! I'm a high school guidance counselor and God forbid my students listen to NPR!!!"

Other listeners realized that Harshaw was not advocating condomless sex; he was simply describing a trend among his peer group. Furthermore he wasn't describing wanton bareback humping. His version went like this: couple has an "intense sitdown;" when they've decided they're ready to trash the rubbers, they both get screened for STDs, and decide on an alternate method of birth control. That sounds pretty responsible, no?

To be fair, there are myriad dangers involved. Young people who see forgoing the latex as a sign of commitment might do so without taking the requisite precautions; that would be a dangerous. And if one member cheats she could bring a disease into what her partner thought was a safe relationship. But if couples are faithful and follow the path described above, condomless sex could be ok.

Speaking from personal experience, sex without a condom does feel like a commitment. And while it may not be a first step down the aisle, as Harshaw describes, his description shows that his peer group views it as a huge decision whose potential consequences are equally large.

Can you relate?

Discussion

Horace Nelson Single Loving, lusting, never owning.
Can't Relate - Posted July 29, 2009

Sure, it's an expression of commitment, but not necessarily the level of commitment that warrants the tag "engagement 2.0." You can be in a relationship that's not exclusive and still have the level of trust and intimacy in which you both decide to safely lose the latex. I'm living that now. We both love each other, we both were tested for STDs and we both trust that if the other gets down and dirty with someone else they'll take every precaution to protect our mutual health.

Really folks, the notion that ALL love is all-or-nothing is so antiquated. There are many equally valid relationship paradigms in society beyond the monogamist tradition.

Score: 0

You need to be logged in to do that!

Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free. We'll keep your seat warm for you!
BookMama Married Happily Married
Posted July 30, 2009

I think the level of commitment and trust required to not use a condom with someone but have sex with other and use condoms is very, very high and certainly as high as the commitment of being engaged.

Score: 0
Horace Nelson Single Loving, lusting, never owning.
Posted July 31, 2009

Don't confuse the level of trust that you, yourself, need with what the level is or should be for everyone. People often project their own feelings as a standard for society et al.

Score: 0
BookMama Married Happily Married
Posted July 31, 2009

Well, I think the level of trust needed to not use a condom with someone isn't just a subjective thing. You're putting your life in their hands. It doesn't mean you want to marry them, but you should be able to trust them just as much as a fiancee.

Throw in that your partner is planning to sleep with other people but have the self-control to practice safe sex, and you need to be able to trust them at an incredibly high level.

Score: 0
Christan Equality Marashio Single Dating Pundit, www.AndThatsWhyYoureSingle.com
Can't Relate, But Hear Ya - Posted July 29, 2009

I think bareback sex is absolutely an expression of commitment. What concerns me more is how many women assume monogamy and exclusivity and don't explicitly communicate that that's what they want. Too often, women assume monogamy because we want to believe we have that kind of relationship. Or the man tells them they're not looking for a relationship at that point and the woman still continues to sleep with the man in hopes he'll eventually change his mind. This "intense sitdown" HAS to come once a true level of consistency and trust and comfort has been established and women need to be sure to clear up any gray area surrounding exclusivity. I get advice requests from women all the time who are too afraid to do this and end up being emotionally crushed or worse.

Score: 1
BookMama Married Happily Married
Posted July 28, 2009

Well, on the one hand it sounds bad, but on the other hand, are you going to use a condom throughout your marriage?

Score: 0
Posted July 30, 2008

Calling it "unsafe sex" seems a bit alarmist. If both partners are STI-free and monogamous and another form of birth control is in play, there's nothing "unsafe" about it.

Score: 0
Posted July 30, 2008

I agree with Lux!

Of course, you have to *really* trust a person that they're not cheating on you behind your back. But what's a relationship without trust?

Score: 0

Join the Discussion!

Login or sign up now - it's fun, easy, and free. We'll keep your seat warm for you!

Custom Newsletter 2

Recommended for You

Login or Sign Up for a personalized YouTango experience.
See all or Ask your own question!