To clarify, I consider the term "commit" to mean being in a monogamous relationship with someone.

I recently had an exchange with two folks here who made me question something I accepted as obvious. I made the point that you can't really know if you want to commit to someone - and if they want to commit to you - without having sex first. I did not expect that to be a contentious statement.

One responded as follows:

Of course you can. What? People do this all of the time. Yes, it's extreme, but our goal is to find the middle ground. The middle ground isn't having sex then determining if they are worth committing to, it's determining if they are worth committing to then having sex.

The other said:

Said every slut who ever walked the earth.

I honestly think the last time I heard of anyone committing to someone before sex was in high school. I thought that only happened with virgins and religious folks. People I know generally meet someone, date them casually for a couple months, and then become exclusive (or don't). It takes some time to get to know someone enough to decide whether they're worth your commitment; usually this "getting to know each other" phase involves sex. Sometimes it works out sometimes it doesn't. You might think they're potentially worth committing to but then change your mind after spending more time with them. Or they might change their mind. This to me is a natural and realistic take on modern dating dynamics.

PPD, would you commit to someone before sex? Can you really even know if someone is worth committing to before sex? Do I just hang out with slutty men and women?