Sex safety, like job safety, like food safety, goes with the territory

Fri, 2007-10-12 09:36

Another public service announcement, this time highly related to sex: Sarah of the venerable (and excellent) All About My Vagina has what I think is a wonderful suggestion for

Please call it “sex safety”

It suddenly struck me this week that “sex safety” is an all-round better term than “safer sex.” In some situations, I think terminology is over-emphasized (like the whole vulva vs. vagina thing). But I also know that I would much rather have a pap exam than a pap smear (or as loverman’s sister once said, “if they called it a cunt scrape no one would go”).

I think safer sex, and safe sex before it, are the kind of terms that actually cause problems for themselves. A lot of important, excellent work has been done to research and promote “safer sex,” but I think the simple act of calling it “sex safety” would help smooth the way in the future.

Safe sex sounds like boring rules

Safe sex sounds like limited sex, controlled sex, modified sex. It sounds like one way to have sex, like I’m being asked to have sex in a different, more boring way. That is definitely starting off on the wrong foot…

Safer sex sounds like a runner-up

Safer sex sounds just as oppressive and boring, and as a bonus it sounds like a failure. Oops, it isn’t actually safe; it’s only safe-ish. We were wrong about safe sex, and we don’t know how to make it completely safe anymore…

Sex safety sounds sexy and powerful

Sex safety, on the other hand, sounds like a skill. That’s empowering. Now I’m not being asked to limit my sex with rules, I’m being offered sexual skills. Sexual skills are actually sexy, which is stunning for a health care strategy…

I’ve just quoted snippets. Sarah ably lays out her case here.

It’s a great idea. And about time someone thought of it too. I remember the advent of the term “safe sex.” It was inspired in the aftermath of the first round of HIV, soon after doctors figured out that it was a communicable disease (they weren’t sure at first) and that it was spread sexually (they weren’t sure of that either — for instance they thought maybe the relatively common bath-house stimulant amyl nitrate might have been suppressing the immune system.) And it happened in the face of a real panic, when it seemed that a whole generation the best and brightest in New York, the Bay Area, L.A. and elsewhere were suddenly sick and dying.

That was then. This is pushing 25 years later. As Sarah hints, “safe sex” or the even weaker “safer sex” imply there’s some other kind you might be having. And in the early 1980s “some other kind” was the kind you were having maybe only a few months previously. Today, a generation and change after the initial crisis, calling it “sex safety” puts the emphasis back where it belongs.

We usually talk about driving safety, job safety, food safety, and so on — and sex-gotcha-factor notwithstanding — yet consequences of neglecting food, driving or job safety are often far worse both for ourselves and those around us than neglecting sex safety. But we don’t make special cases out of those because it just… comes with the territory! Time to start thinking the same way about sex.

Submitted by 1673 (not verified) on Fri, 2007-10-12 14:14.

...consequences of neglecting food, driving or job safety are often far worse both for ourselves and those around us than neglecting sex safety
On the other hand, if neglecting sex safety results in Aids, the consequences can be every bit as bad, if not worse.

At the risk of over analysing, perhaps it is that "safe" and "safer" are describing sex, as you say making it seem either tame or a weak alternative, whereas "sex safety" puts safety in the forefront which is described by sex (almost sexy).

PS I like that shot. I would almost go so far as to say it's one of my favourites, except I know there must be quite a few more to see. My usual *very slightly* ocd self might well have counted just how many, but I'll reserve that pleasure for another day:)

[I said that not to diminish the consequences of unsafe sex but to put them in perspective -- if we were as careless with food-handling, driving, or industrial safety as we are with sex safety the carnage would be... as bad as HIV. For the most part, fortunately, we *are* more careful with other stuff, even though we don't identify it as "safe cooking" or "safe working" or "safe driving" where it's all about safety. So that's why I like Sarah's suggestion to make it about sex... safety -- *part* of sex, rather than a *kind* of sex. Thanks, A. --fl]

Submitted by 1673 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-10-13 12:08.

Also meant to say that I love the slight fuzziness, or whatever you would call the effect, of the last few photos. Perhaps a product of reflection, or maybe you've added a little something after the fact (tho I know you don't usually do that) but in any case, the slight graininess is gorgeous.

[I think that's just from cropping images a lot. Flickr (the photo host I use) seems to decide what image resolution to use so smaller clippings wind up with that cool grainy look. Thanks, L! --fl]

Submitted by 1673 (not verified) on Sat, 2007-10-13 12:05.

I like this suggestion too... the discussion makes me think of a line from Billy Bragg's 1991-or-so "Sexuality":

"Safe sex doesn't mean no sex, it just means use your imagination."

He saw the problem with terminology back then.

I have a t-shirt with that line on it... maybe I'll wear it to the mall today. I haven't had that sort of incredulous leering attention in awhile...

[Thank you, L. --fl]

User login