more likely to occur if the partner was a regular lover, if the subject reported a greater
desire to have sex without a condom, to be more interested in having exciting sex, to be
more attracted to their partner, to be in a better mood, to have less communication about
safe sex, and to be less knowledgable about the availability of a condom. However, level
of intoxication was not related to the type of resulting encounter. The results were
also analysed to examine the frequency of self-justifications used. The most common
justification was a belief that they could have sex without ejaculation (‘It’ll be safe to fuck
without a condom, so long as we don’t cum up the arse. So we’ll just fuck without
cumming’), followed by beliefs about faithfulness.
Conclusion
This study is interesting because it integrates cognitions with situational factors. There-
fore, it attempts to place safe and unsafe sex in a context. The authors discuss the results
in terms of developing educational interventions to promote safe sex. In addition, the
authors emphasize that it is the thoughts and beliefs that occur during sexual encounters
which are perhaps more relevant than those described in the cold light of day.
To further the understanding of the process of interaction, some research has used
qualitative methods and has focused on negotiation between people. The Women’s Risk
and AIDS Project (WRAP) interviewed 150 women from London and Manchester about
their sexual histories and sexual behaviour and described the factors that related to the
negotiation of condom use. Holland et al. (1990b: 4) stated that during sex ‘words are
likely to be the most difficult things to exchange’ and suggest that the negotiation of
condom use is far more complex than ‘a simple, practical question about dealing ration-
ally with risk, it is the outcome of negotiation between potentially unequal partners’.
They suggested that although the process of negotiation may be hindered by embar-
rassment as suggested by some of the health promotion campaigns, this ‘embarrassment
over using condoms is not simply a question of bad timing but indicates a very complex
process of negotiation’. Therefore, they place condom use within the context of the
relationship and rather than see the interaction between individuals as only one
component of the process of condom use, they place this interaction centrally.
The results from the WRAP study provide some insights into the process of
negotiation and the interaction between individuals. Some of the interviewees reported
no difficulties in demanding safe sex, with one woman saying ‘if they don’t want to wear
a condom, then tough, you know, go and find someone else’. Another woman said ‘he
really hates using them, so I used to say to him, look, right, look, I have no intention of
getting pregnant again and you have no intention to become a father so you put one
of these on’. However, other women described how difficult it was to suggest safe sex to
their partner with reasons for this relating to not wanting to hurt their boyfriend’s
feelings, not wanting to ‘ruin the whole thing’, and not being able to approach the
subject. One woman said ‘When I got pregnant I thought to myself, “I’m not using a
condom here, I’m not using anything” but I just couldn’t say, just couldn’t force myself
to say, “look you know”.’ Holland et al. (1990b) argued that safe sex campaigns present
condoms as neutral objects, which can be easily negotiated prior to sex and that this
SEX 203