My Poor Generation

[mamajoan]

This occurred to me recently while talking to some friends, and then again yesterday while chatting on AIM.

Have we grown up an entire generation of people who don't know what sex without a condom feels like? And isn't that kind of sad?

I mean, oh sure, there are people in this generation (which I loosely define as everyone 25ish to 35ish) who don't use condoms. I place those in three general categories: a) suicidal morons, b) the criminally undereducated, and c) people in committed LTRs. But aside from them, isn't there still a generalization to be made? That we, the AIDS generation, will never really be able to enjoy sex as a completely guilt- and fear-free activity?

Not that there weren't STDs to be afraid of before AIDS -- herpes, for example. And the ever-present pregnancy risk. But it seems like the generation before us, people having sex in the 70s and early 80s, were a lot more carefree about sex. Part of it might still have been stupidity; they either thought herpes wouldn't happen to them, or figured it was no big deal if it did. But AIDS was, as I understand it, the first STD that caused an actual wholesale change in the very fabric of society. And we grew up with that fear; how can it not have affected us?

(A tangential aspect of this topic, which I won't address in any depth right now, is the question of how this affects our writing of fanfic. Is the wild popularity of Buffy fanfic somehow related to this, because we know that vampires can neither contract nor pass along STDs and therefore it's okay to write Buffy/Spike (for example) without condoms? You could extend this to almost any sci-fi show, really; if it's not creatures that are immune (vampires) then it's in the future where you can pretend they've cured AIDS.)

It's probably fairly obvious how this topic relates to Plan G, but I'll do another post about that in a minute.

This all came up, by the way, when I was talking to some male friends and they were complaining about the way condoms decrease sensation. I'm aware that a lot of guys have this problem (but, being responsible types, they just live with it rather than risk going "bare-back"). It's kind of sad, when you think about it. For the chicks too, obviously, but somehow especially for the guys.

My poor generation
We're airborne with nothing to land on.
Baffled by bullshit,
grounded with nothin' to stand on.

Comments

The funny thing is ...

[jrosehale.livejournal.com]

It's probably fairly obvious how this topic relates to Plan G, but I'll do another post about that in a minute.

When I was mulling over your Plan G, this actually occurred to me. I was all, "I wonder if it's occurred to her to make sure this is cool." So, yeah, that's important.

I'm going to tangent into fanfic and observe that it's funny/disturbing how we get these occasional dust-ups where certain people get upset because the characters aren't having safe sex, and then certain authors will write stories with "disclaimers" at the front saying, "This is in an alternate universe without STDs, so deal with it!"

"Our" generation is very touchy about STDs, sex, and condoms. We want our movie, TV, and written characters to practice safe sex every time, but I'd say it's a good bet that most of us have slipped. It's the usual media/reality hypocrisy.

Re: The funny thing is ...

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'd call it hypocrisy exactly. We hold different standards for literature/fiction than for reality. In fiction, if you write a sex scene without protection (or mention of it, anyway), you can be perceived as making a statement. Or as being irresponsible, I guess. And people feel in some ways that an artist/writer has a responsibility to be socially conscious, like writing a condomless sex scene is endorsing condomless sex and you shouldn't do that. I'm ambivalent about that, really. But I got in such trouble making sweeping statements about writerly responsibility in the noncon thread a while back, so I'm not touching it this time! ;)

[munoz.livejournal.com]

an actual wholesale change in the very fabric of society

If this were true, AIDS would be all but gone from the U.S. If you limit the change to sexual practices, then AIDS would be gone from certain segments of society (those not directly involved in intravenous drug use). Also, teen pregnancy would have leveled off, plummeted and mostly disappeared. None of these things have occurred.

AIDS awareness may have made a change, but not to "the very fabric" of anything. The change was in some parts of society, which parts were probably fairly safe to begin with, and so it wasn't particularly radical. We think society changed because of the focus on safe sex in the media; but it has not, in fact, changed on the ground.

[tiggrrl.livejournal.com]

Sadly, this is true. In fact, there has been some press recently on the fact that there has been a huge rise recently in unsafe sex in the gay male community. Theories on why it's happening vary from better HIV/AIDS drugs (which therefore make getting the disease seem not so bad), to the thrill of risky behavior, to the desire to pretend the disease doesn't exist. It's kind of weird that this topic came up, because I just watched Jeffrey for the first time today.

[munoz.livejournal.com]

I'd heard that, but wasn't certain.

As for Jeffrey: that's a great movie. I didn't realize it came out so recently ('95); I thought it was around much longer than that.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

I can't believe you only just now saw Jeffrey!!! I LOVE that movie. Snif! It's so sad, and sweet, and funny, and sad, and Patrick Stewart doing gay! In fact, maybe I'm due for another watching.

Periodically I check to see whether it's out on DVD. No luck yet. :(

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily think you can separate the media from "the fabric of society" so easily. I mean, tv shows, movies, magazines, all talk about sex much more frankly and openly than they did before AIDS. (At least, so my older friends tell me.)

And I also don't necessarily think it's true that a wholesale society change would mean AIDS would be wiped out. As an analogy, discovering that cigarettes cause cancer hasn't made people stop smoking, nor has it found us a cure for cancer. Hell, the development of satellite photography and space shuttles hasn't wiped out the people who believe the earth is flat! There will always be idiots. *g*

[munoz.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't agree that the media and society mesh well, at least on issues such as this one. After all, just because Buffy may air in Colorado doesn't mean they're not homophobic. Secondly, you claim there has been a wholesale change as a result of knowing that cigarettes cause cancer. Well, we knew that in the 60s, and nothing changed. Even now, nothing has changed. Second-hand smoke concerns are a bigger issue, and have had more of an impact, and have little to do with health and more to do with annoyed people getting to vote.

I don't think media frankness had much to do with AIDS. I think it had more to do with the women's movements, birth control, teen pregnancy, sensationalism inflation and a high-stimulation MTV generation, among other things. AIDS was a blip.

One talks about sex frankly and openly to increase ratings, not to prevent your audience from dying. If the latter were true, every ad would be a public service announcement. ;-)