UCSB’s Sex & Relationships Interns hosted an event on Del Playa in Isla Vista at 10 p.m. on Friday, April 24 cleverly termed “Condom Alert.”  
According to Ellen Davis, External Coordinator for the S&R Interns, Condom Alert promotes neither drunken sex, nor safe sex, but rather, safer sex. An S&R Intern who wished not to be named said the interns believe “there is no such thing as ‘safe’ sex — every time [you have sex] you’re risking pregnancy and [contracting] STDs.”  

But how can sex be made safer if it is conducted between two people of whom at least one is intoxicated? Davis stated that sex is made safer thanks to the S&R Interns because they are responsible for “putting out a resource” and that “whether or not people have sex is their choice completely.”   
Either Davis misunderstood the question or sidestepped it. If I had been referring to sober people then I would have been in complete agreement with her. However, I was not referring to merely any “people” who decide to have sex, but to inebriated people specifically. It is for this reason that I found her justification odd. How is sex made safer if decisions regarding it are made by intoxicated people who cannot coherently — or at least should not — consent to having sex at all?   
When asked if she found the S&R Interns’ effort morally questionable, Davis said she did not. She instead said that S&R condom distribution does not encourage the behavior of a person who decides that “it’s OK to rape someone who’s been drinking.”  
Davis yet again failed to answer my question. I asked if she thought condom distribution was risky due to the possibility of placing a condom into a sexually aggressive drunk’s hands. Of course it is not OK to rape someone who has been drinking; most people will not dispute this. I contend that placing the condom into an aggressor’s hands — enabling him or her to feel the “safety” of a condom that is 97 percent effective against pregnancy — is not OK either. Making condoms available on a party street is an act of enabling drunken sex to take place.    
The intern, however, stated that giving a person a condom “doesn’t make [him or her] more likely to have sex” and went a step further, stating that no individual is going to think “now I have a condom in my hands, now I’m going to rape someone.” She also articulately argued that it is not the place of S&R Interns to make assumptions about whether or not those who receive condoms will have sex on the same night that they are given the condom.   
Distributing condoms on a party street where a large number of students are drunk out of their minds is morally questionable. It’s highly risky at worst, and merely suggestive at best. The intern stated that it was not the S&R Interns’ place to assume when people may have sex, yet she assumes that putting a condom into a person’s hand is not responsible for putting the idea of sex into his or her head, nor could it encourage him or her to commit sexual acts or enable sexual violence. Such selective assumption is one-sided, plainly stated. 
I agree that no assumptions should be made, but by that I literally mean that there should be no assumptions made regarding sexual activity. I agree with the S&R Interns’ claim that UCSB is a college campus where people are going to have sex with or without the S&R effort to distribute condoms. Yet the S&R Interns assume that they are not putting sex into the minds of the drunken students stumbling down DP.   
Both Davis and the intern quoted a mysterious “study” in which it was apparently discovered that handing out condoms has no effect on how many people have sex. What kind of people? Drunken ones? Handing out condoms probably does not have much of an effect on sober people who are completely aware of whether or not sex is on their mind, true. I, however, posit that inebriated people are more impressionable than sober people and are more likely to grab at a condom perhaps merely because it is offered to them. In the case of an intoxicated person accepting a condom because it is offered, the recipient of the condom might not have been planning on having sex before going out to I.V., but upon receiving the condom, that recipient is in a position to change his or her mind, a position that the Condom Alert would have put him or her in. 
Although S&R Interns claim that an act of impersonal, one-time sex is a choice, they also attempt to teach respect in “healthier relationship lifestyles,” according to Davis. I hardly think that a one-night stand is representative of any form of respect, mutual or otherwise.   
While S&R Interns may not be “promoting” drunken sex, they are enabling it, and I for one would not be proud to be a part of its facilitation. 
The S&R Interns also table in the Arbor during regular school hours. When asked why all of the condom events are not held during the day, the intern minimally responded that “Condom Alert is our only night event.” As if only holding one late night event on the infamous DP should not detract from their encouragement of sober protection. Therefore the question remains: Why are condom events not held exclusively during daylight hours when most, if not all, students are sober? What harm would this do? How would this hinder S&R Interns’ mission to promote using protection? It wouldn’t. 
All this having been said, the S&R Interns do not force condoms on anyone; they offer and if declined they do not pressure students to take a condom. The S&R Interns will also be holding an event — “Sex Affair” — on May 20 in the Student Resource Building. They tabling along with the Students Teaching Alcohol and other drug Responsibility (S.T.A.R.) and Healthy Eating And Living (H.E.A.L.) Interns, raising awareness on sexual responsibility and healthier relationship lifestyles. It is an event that will be held midweek during daylight hours, so it is unlikely that the interns’ good intentions will go awry.