Your cart is currently empty!
Summary
Being slutty and STBBIs don’t necessarily go hand in hand. It’s more complex than that. The reality is that one’s number of sexual partners is just one risk factor, and we must consider contexts and behaviours to better understand its significance.
This article is presented by Prelib.
We might be led to believe that the more sexual partners we have, the greater our chances are of collecting sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs; Balfe et al., 2010). This assumption is consistent with the belief that people contract STBBIs because they’re “immoral” or “irresponsible” (Balfe et al., 2010; Shepherd & Gerend, 2014).
Yet, over the last few years, we have observed both a relative decline in the number of sexual partners among young adults (Twenge et al., 2015, 2017) and …an increase in rates of STBBIs (Blouin et al., 2023).
Clearly, the link between number of partners and STBBI rate is not as simple as it seems.The relationship is not causal either; rather, one’s number of sexual partners is a risk factor. Just as having only one sexual partner doesn’t mean that you don’t or won’t have an STBBI, having or having had many partners doesn’t mean that you’ll have one or many STBBIs, but it nonetheless increases risk.
Besides, how many partners are we officially considering “a lot”?
Rather than assuming that multiple partners and STBBIs go hand in hand, it would be wiser to take into account the behaviours and contexts that might explain why multiplying one’s partners is considered a risk factor.
Among others, these behaviours and contexts include the following:
Other than complete sexual abstinence—having no sexual contact with anyone whatsoever —the best protections against STBBIs are the barrier methods, which include external (“male” or traditional) and internal (“female”) condoms, dental dams, and latex gloves. 44% of single people reported not having used protection against STBBIs during their last sexual encounter (this figure rises to 74% among people in committed relationships). Data from the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (2017), which presents similar findings, also show that among young adults aged 17 to 29 who reported using a condom during their last sexual encounter, 20% stirred the paint before putting one on. Oops.
If we know that condoms are effective, why don’t more of us use them? According to the Canadian Community Health Survey, which boasts more than 11,000 young participants, 47% of respondents said that they didn’t use condoms because they were in a monogamous relationship, and 47% because they were already using another contraception method (i.e., hormonal contraception, which offers no protection against STBBIs; Rotermann & McKay, 2020). In addition, 24% believed that they were not at risk of contracting an STBBI, and 22% didn’t like how condoms feel.
Even though young adults are particularly affected by STBBIs (Blouin et al., 2023), research shows that most don’t get tested regularly (Boudewyns & Paquin, 2011; Martin-Smith et al., 2018). In a sample of sexually active Québec youths aged 17 to 29, only 31% of men and 42% of women reported getting tested in the last 12 months (Lambert et al., 2017).
It goes without saying that, if you don’t get tested, especially if you don’t always use condoms, the likelihood of contracting and transmitting an STBBI can increase from one partner to another and, in some cases, even from one monogamous relationship to another (Ott et al., 2011).
Once again, people’s reasons for not getting tested abound. Among other things, beyond a lack of general knowledge about STBBIs and screening (McDonagh et al., 2018), people:
In sum, people are afraid of being seen as irresponsible or diverging too much from monogamy.
It’s totally fine to toss aside condoms and dental dams after having dated the same person for a while. The problem is that we tend to do so for reasons that don’t hold much water from a public health point of view.
For example, we stop using protection when:
Instead of deciding not to use condoms for these reasons, it’s better to have an open discussion with your partner(s) about your sexual health. Rather than asking questions like “Do you have an STBBI?” or “Are you clean?”, it’s much more useful to ask the following questions:
If many of us think that having many sexual partners necessarily leads to contracting one or more STBBIs, then many of us probably believe that monogamy can protect us from STBBIs; however, studies paint a much more complex picture…
According to a 2021 survey of Club Sexu’s followers, people in nonmonogamous relationships (open relationships, polyamory, etc.) and those in monogamous relationships reported similar rates of STBBI diagnoses throughout their lives. You read that right! The findings of the only existing scientific study on this subject (to my knowledge) point in the same direction (Lehmiller, 2015).Here are a few possible explanations as to why that is. First, monogamy, as it is practiced today, is not an effective protection strategy against STBBIs (Conley et al., 2020). Monogamy can be interpreted in different ways and, in its “purest” form—having only one lifetime sexual partner—it offers almost 100% protection against STBBIs. The problem, however, is that most of us have more than one partner in our lives and adopt certain behaviours that expose us to increased risk:
Second, people in nonmonogamous relationships are more likely to adopt prevention strategies, such as condom use and frequent STBBI testing, than people in monogamous relationships (Lehmiller, 2015). A study comparing these two groups also found that people in monogamous relationships took fewer precautions to limit the transmission of STBBIs with their other partners (i.e., during infidelity; Conley et al., 2012).
Infidelity, the elephant in the room, is a relatively common behaviour that introduces the risk of contracting an STBBI.
According to one study, 21.2% to 31.8% of women and 36.6% to 52.8% of men in monogamous relationships have engaged in sexual activities involving a risk of STBBI transmission (oral sex, anal penetration, etc.) with someone other than their committed partner (Luo et al., 2010).
Thus, what exposes us to a risk of contracting an STBBI is more a failure to use protection than simply having several partners.
Having multiple partners can be a risk factor for contracting an STBBI. After all, if you have no sexual contact whatsoever, the risk of contracting an STBBI is almost zero. The risk increases with the number of partners simply because the chances of coming across an infected person increase.
However, the belief that more sexual partners automatically leads to more STBBIs is a risk factor in itself, because it increases or maintains STBBI stigma, which does nothing to protect us from STBBIs. In fact, it can even increase our likelihood of avoiding condoms, getting tested, and having an open discussion about our sexual health, all of which can… increase STBBI rates.
So, if our goal is to decrease rates of STBBI transmission, it’s more effective to do the following things rather than perpetuate slutshaming and STBBI stigma by avoiding dating people who have or have had several partners:
Balfe, M., Brugha, R., O’Connell, E., McGee, H., O’Donovan, D. et Vaughan, D. (2010). Why don’t young women go for Chlamydia testing? A qualitative study employing Goffman’s stigma framework. Health, Risk & Society, 12(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698571003632437
Blouin, K., Lambert, G. et Perrault Sullivan, G. (2023, mai). Portrait des infections transmissibles sexuellement et par le sang (ITSS) au Québec : année 2021 et projections 2022. Institut national de santé publique du Québec. https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/2023-07/3364-portrait-itss-2021-projections-2022.pdf
Boudewyns, V. et Paquin, R. S. (2011). Intentions and beliefs about getting tested for STDs: Implications for communication interventions. Health Communication, 26(8), 701-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.563353
Conley, T. D. et Piemonte, J. L. (2020). Monogamy as public policy for STD prevention: In theory and in practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220943228
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A. et Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(6), 1559–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02712.x
Institut national de santé publique du Québec. (2017). Le condom. https://www.inspq.qc.ca/espace-itss/pixel/le-condom
Lambert, G., Mathieu-Chartier, S., Goggin, P., Maurais, E. et the PIXEL research team. (2017, 19 septembre). Étude PIXEL – Portrait de la santé sexuelle des jeunes adultes québécois. Institut national de santé publique du Québec. https://www.inspq.qc.ca/publications/2307#:~:text=L’objectif%20de%20l’%C3%A9tude,et%20le%20bien%2D%C3%AAtre%20sexuel
Lehmiller, J. J. (2015). A comparison of sexual health history and practices among monogamous and consensually nonmonogamous sexual partners. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(10), 2022–2028. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12987
Luo, S., Cartun, M. A. et Snider, A. G. (2010). Assessing extradyadic behavior: A review, a new measure, and two new models. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(3), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.033
Martin-Smith, H. A., Okpo, E. A. et Bull, E. R. (2018). Exploring psychosocial predictors of STI testing in university students. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5587-2
McDonagh, L. K., Saunders, J. M., Cassell, J., Curtis, T., Bastaki, H., Hartney, T. et Rait, G. (2018). Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0821-y
Morroni, C., Heartwell, S., Edwards, S., Zieman, M. et Westhoff, C. (2014). The impact of oral contraceptive initiation on young women’s condom use in 3 American cities: missed opportunities for intervention. PloS One, 9(7), e101804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101804
Ott, M. A., Katschke, A., Tu, W. et Fortenberry, J. D. (2011). Longitudinal associations among relationship factors, partner change, and sexually transmitted infection acquisition in adolescent women. Sexually transmitted diseases, 38(3), 153–157.
https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181f2e292
Rotermann, M. et McKay, A. (2020). Sexual behaviours, condom use and other contraceptive methods among 15-to 24-year-olds in Canada. Health Reports, 31(9), 1–11. https://DOI:10.25318/82-003-x202000900001-
Shepherd, L. et Harwood, H. (2017). The role of STI-related attitudes on screening attendance in young adults. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(6), 753–758. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1234715
Skakoon-Sparling, S. et Cramer, K. M. (2019). Are we blinded by desire? Relationship motivation and sexual risk-taking intentions during condom negotiation. The Journal of Sex Research, 57(5), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1579888
Sparling, S. et Cramer, K. (2015). Choosing the danger we think we know: Men and women’s faulty perceptions of sexually transmitted infection risk with familiar and unfamiliar new partners. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.243-A2
Starks, T. J., Pawson, M., Stephenson, R., Sullivan, P. et Parsons, J. T. (2018). Dyadic qualitative analysis of condom use scripts among emerging adult gay male couples. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1359713
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A. et Wells, B. E. (2015). Changes in American adults’ sexual behavior and attitudes, 1972–2012. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2273–2285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0540-2
Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A. et Wells, B. E. (2017). Sexual inactivity during young adulthood is more common among US Millennials and iGen: Age, period, and cohort effects on having no sexual partners after age 18. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0798-z