Society & Culture - Posted by Nicole Riehl-U. Iowa on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 12:24 - 5 Comments 
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
(1 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5) Loading ...Casual affairs can have serious consequences
A recent survey of heterosexual adults found that one-third of sexual relationships lacked exclusivity. “The United States has seen a major shift toward nonromantic sexual partnerships—people becoming sexually involved when they are just casually dating or not dating at all.” says Anthony Paik. Health professionals are interested in the statistics because concurrent partnerships speed up the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Credit: Courtesy, iStockphoto
U. IOWA (US)—Adults who are involved in friends “with benefits” relationships and those who hook up with either a stranger or an acquaintance, are much more likely to have multiple partners, according to a new study.
Share this article
Email
Republish this article
The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.
“The United States has seen a major shift toward nonromantic sexual partnerships—people becoming sexually involved when they are just casually dating or not dating at all,” says Anthony Paik, a sociologist at the University of Iowa and author of the study, which is published in the journal Perspectives of Sexual and Reproductive Health.
“A quarter of the respondents became sexually involved while casually dating and a fifth did so as friends or acquaintances.”
The study, which surveyed 783 heterosexual adults, found that one-third of sexual relationships in the Chicago area lack exclusivity. One in 10 men and women reported that both they and their partner had slept with other people.
Concurrent partnerships speed up the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Paik says.
Respondents, ranging in age from 18 to 60, were asked how many people they had been with during their most recent relationship. They also estimated how many partners their partner had during that time. Sexual involvement was defined as genital contact.
Overall, 17 percent of men and 5 percent of women acknowledged that they had been with someone else. Another group—17 percent of women and 8 percent of men—said they’d been exclusive but their partner had not. Twelve percent of women and 10 percent of men said neither of them had been monogamous.
Being involved with a friend increased the likelihood of non-monogamy by 44 percent for women and 25 percent for men. Involvement with an acquaintance or stranger increased the odds by 30 percent for women and 43 percent for men.
Respondents who got along with each other’s parents were less likely to have multiple sex partners. Paik says people are less likely to risk a relationship when they take family stakeholders into consideration.
The research does not lead to the conclusion that efforts should be made to revive dating.
“People can make their own choices, but we hope this information will be useful as they weigh the risks and rewards of nonromantic sexual relationships,” he says.
“We encourage people be aware of the potential for sexual concurrency and take appropriate precautions to avoid sexually transmitted infections.”
University of Iowa news: http://news.uiowa.edu/
Please wait
5 Comments
dnarom
sbirks
The title isn’t about moralizing: it refers to the effect on sexual disease transmission of having more than one partner concurrently. If you are familiar with the epidemiology of AIDS in southern Africa, you will know that one of the reasons that it is believed to have spread so rapidly among the populations there (vs. for example, North America) is that often concurrent sexual partners are a widespread and accepted part of the social culture. As I understand it, it isn’t just the number of partners, it’s whether or not they are concurrent, versus sequential, that makes a big difference in disease transmission. Thus, if this trend is building in the U.S., it will mean people will have to be even more vigilant about protecting themselves and their partners, and it is probably something that will be of interest to studying the epidemiology of sexually transmitted diseases here.
dnarom
I would be willing to believe that the intent of the author was to emphasize the effects of concurrent partners on disease transmission. If so, however, the article could use retooling for two reasons:
1) The title doesn’t say “Concurrent sexual relationships can have serious consequences,” rather the title emphasizes that “casual relationships” lead to serious consequences – not exactly accurate. At best, casual relationships are linked to concurrency and concurrency can have serious consequences. Not to mention that “serious consequences” is hardly specific to disease transmission.
2) Disease transmission is mentioned only in passing:
“Concurrent partnerships speed up the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Paik says.”
“People can make their own choices, but we hope this information will be useful as they weigh the risks and rewards of nonromantic sexual relationships,” he says.
“We encourage people be aware of the potential for sexual concurrency and take appropriate precautions to avoid sexually transmitted infections.”
No data, no citations, no science. The science in this article is exclusively focused on the demographic study. It is disingenuous to study demographics and then to draw unsubstantiated conclusions and provide a misleading title.
Pootle
I’m with dnarom. Moralizing masquerading as science is always a bad thing, and this article certainly qualifies. However, and maybe, and perhaps, if the study had found that casual sexual relationships of the sort it describes were strongly associated with long-term relationships breaking up AND the people involved felt that that was a bad thing, that the casual relationships had ultimately caused them more pain than pleasure, then it might have been more justified in talking about “serious consequences.” The same would apply if it had paid more attention to, and provided more convincing information on, the health hazards of such relationships. However, the hazards come from the sex itself, not the fact that the sex is between strangers or people not in a romantic relationship. A bout of unprotected sex after months of romantic courtship could be every bit as bad, health-wise, as a quickie with a stranger in a bar parking lot. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect their own health, whether they are in a casual or a committed relationship. I have spoken.
pat a thomas
“A quarter of the respondents became sexually involved while casually dating and a fifth did so as friends or acquaintances.”
This statement DOES NOT LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVE CONCURRENT PARTNERSHIPS as the article implies when it follows with the statement:
“Concurrent partnerships speed up the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, Paik says.”
Casual affairs do not inevitably involve concurrent partnerships. Mixing demographic data with unconnected pronouncements are not the best way to present an argument…
“Casual affairs can have serious consequences”…really? Why does the author feel the need to moralize what is, in effect, a demographic study providing some interesting data on current sexual practices? It is profoundly disappointing, even on a site like this, it is impossible to escape Puritanical commentary. Can we not just focus on the data and leave the ethical judgments to those involved?