The dangers of sex: a health perspective

If the main argument against women having sex is our right to choose what we do with our bodies, here's the problem: sex isn't about morality. By presenting it in those terms, we overlook a more significant issue: health.

Why is sex dangerous? Outside of the risks of getting an STD (sexually transmitted disease), it's the STDs you can't protect yourself from (e.g., herpes, HIV) that you need to worry about. You can get mono from kissing, etc. You can get hepatitis from oral sex regardless of whose anatomy benefits from it - man or woman. With HIV, it's not just sexual penetration that places you at risk; and, more importantly, you can't guarantee the condom (men's or women's) won't break.

If you're jumping into sex without knowing the person you're doing it with - especially without a strong level of trust - you're choosing to take unnecessary risks that could impact you in the long-term. Think of it in terms of economics: Is it worth investing hundreds of dollars every year to cover medical expenses for incurable STDs/health problems for one night of sex that your lover paid - oh I don't know - $100 for? Say you were together for six months, but you spent most of the time intwined so that the pay in came around to $1,000?

If you're rich and can afford medical care, no problem. What about those of us who aren't - is it worth the risk? A one-night stand, for example: Is one night with a lousy or awesome lover worth the long-term investment if you're not lucky enough to avoid contracting something you didn't plan on? Ask yourself: Is your body worth a hamburger meal and a movie (or whatever people pay out for sex)?

The issue isn't marriage. Who cares if you have sex with someone and don't marry him or her? What's at stake is what you're willing to give up to be with someone you can't guarantee will stick around long enough even if you don't wind up caught in a spiralling nightmare. Even if you don't care that the person does or doesn't want to continue contact after the sex is over, what does your body mean to you?

I mean, seriously. If you're so horny for sex, why not get a dildo or other sex toy to get you off than risk it with someone who could end up costing you thousands of dollars that your insurance may cover? And if you get caught in that situation, are you looking forward to ending up dealing with pills or whatever else is available for the rest of your life - not to mention the burden of passing on the ailment to someone else if you continue renting out your body?

Oooh, yes: That's what we do when we have sex. Someone gives money for however long it takes two (or more as the case may be) to have sex. Then maybe you don't talk for a few days - or maybe you do - and then you have sex again, either with or without being taken out again. And the cycle continues. After all, there's no free sex really. I mean, can you see yourself in a sexual relationship where the other person doesn't give you anything or take you around anywhere? Barring that, could you only have sex without needing to talk or e-mail/text message/etc.?

No, sex is paid for and it's up to you to know what your body's worth. For myself, I've made it almost impossible to place myself in that compromising position. Here are my latest rules regarding the possibility of sex, which means accepting the unnecessary risks involved with it:

- I've had to have dated the guy for at least six months, and he's had to have spent by that time at least $5,000 on me.

- When we start dating, he needs to sign a legal contract that guarantees his monogamy to me during our relationship; he must also agree to undergo regular testing for STDs, etc. prior to our having sex and during the time we have sex if I decide I'm ready and he still wants me.

- He must set aside $50,000 in a trust fund to be used only for medical expenses on the chance I do contract an STD or other health-related problem from him (that is, none of it gets paid directly to me and I must show documentation that I need hospitalization or medication, etc.); he only gets the money back if (1) we never have sex during our relationship (payable immediately) or (2) after an X amount of time in which I continue to test negative since some things like HIV or herpes can take years to show up as positive.

Why do I go through all of the above trouble? One, I'm not interested in marriage. Two, I believe that dating has attached to it whether we accept it or not an implicit understanding/desire that the relationship may lead to marriage even if the person you're with isn't someone who interests you as a marriage prospect. Why do you think affairs are so problematic? Even when the relationship is just sex, there's an unwritten assumption that there's more to it than the physical aspects, which is stupid I know, but nonetheless true.

Three, I'm not interested in having sex. I'd rather develop friendships with people that will last until my end of time as we know it. If I choose to have sex with someone, I want it to be with a guy who isn't just going to go away afterward, who isn't married, and who isn't just looking to satisfy his needs. (Ah yes, I'm also fat; and what I attract every time - and it's never failed - are horny men, which is a complete turnoff. I've always been more than my body, and I'm not - given my weight - excited at the thought of getting hot and bothered with someone - another reason I stay fat; it's a turn-off for most men unless they're desperate.)

Finally, I don't need the tensions associated with dating. Friendship requires nothing but time. You can hang out with someone and just talk or you can go do things together, and the whole point of that is just to share time together as two people who may or may not have similar interests and enjoy the common bond of personhood. Sex is right when the chemistry's right and/or the person you're with is someone you trust and who not only respects who you are at every level but also feels a common bond to you where sex is an expression of affection and not just about two bodies going at it.

We are animals after all, and there's nothing wrong with sex or wanting to have sex. If it were only that, sex wouldn't be anything to argue about. The problem with morality is that it makes it something to challenge; like, who cares if you believe it's wrong, it's my body and I'll do with it what I want and you can't stop me.

Now make sex a health issue and promote it as that, and then maybe people start thinking of not having sex immediately (at least, not without developing trust with the other person) because they recognize that not doing so fails as a preventative measure. Place sex in terms of a long-term economic issue and you might get people asking what their bodies are worth to risk the high interest rates attached to sexual activity.

It won't change things significantly; I mean, just look at the example of credit cards. However, it might get more people thinking about it and, unlike credit cards, you're talking about a person's life here; and something that affects us personally more often than not gets our attention.

Anyway, if we were focusing more on building relationships than just releasing tensions (which we don't need people to do for us given all the available sex toys), we might find a better world in which we see each other not for what the other can give us, but what we can share together. I know, in an ideal world, blah da blah da.


* Note: I wish to acknowledge tigger_ne who, while playing a game of Yahoo!® Games - Literati with me, willingly engaged me as I expressed the above during our informal chat conversation. He's otherwise consented to be recognized as "Dr. B.," a psychology professor in some state I can't remember. He also introduced the phrase "benevolent sexism," which I aim to do research on for a later post; the scholars he recommended I start with are Fiske and Glick (2001). :)