Arousing suspicion and violating trust
The lived ideology of safe sex talk
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7512501 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jeff Gavin (0000-0002-5580-276X, Macquarie University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2000 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 117-134 |
| Publication date | 2000-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Culture Health & Sexuality (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-1058 • E-ISSN: 1464-5351 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/136910500300750 |
| PMID | 12295878 |
| OpenAlex | W2000398420 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 12 |
| References cited | 10 |
This paper addresses issues surrounding sexual negotiation between young men and women, specifically on the assumptions informing two commonly perceived risks associated with safe sex talk with a sexual partner: arousing suspicion and violating trust. By utilizing a distinction between ¿lived¿ and ¿intellectual¿ ideologies, these issues are explored through an examination of the tensions that exist between young people's understandings of ¿official¿ safe sex advice and their common sense understandings of safe sex practices. The ways in which these tensions are negotiated are explored, and some common sense impediments to putting safe sex advice into practice are identified. Taking a Shotterian approach to meaning construction, the present study focuses on 19 audience-group conversations about two AIDS-related teen television programs. These conversations are analyzed through the foregrounding of audience action problems and accounts. It emerges that the initiation of safe sex talk raises questions about the talker's past, the answers to which can undermine trust between partners. This loss of trust, however, has different meanings when applied to men and women. For a man, it means that he can no longer be trusted to be discreet, while for a woman it means that she is no longer considered to be a trustworthy or low-risk partner. It was concluded that effective safe sex advice needs to take into consideration such local, common sense understandings in order to bridge the gap between the ¿lived¿ and the ¿intellectual¿ ideologies of safe sex talk
Action (physics · Common sense · Foregrounding · Ideology · Meaning (existential · Negotiation · Political science · Sociology · Gender, Feminism, and Media · Law · Media Studies and Communication · Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology
Exploring Female Narratives of Sexual Intimacy and the Social Suppression of Desire
Non-consensual and Consensual Non-monogamy in Norway
Risky groups, risky behaviour, and risky persons
Safe sex’
Establishment of safety paradigms and trust in emerging adult relationships
Trust, Sexual Trust, and Sexual Health
Television Teen Drama and HIV/Aids
Extradyadic Sexual Relationships in Norway
Safe Sex Versus Safe Love? Relationship Context and Condom Use Among Male Adolescents in the Favelas of Recife, Brazil
HPV-related quality of life in diagnosed women
Understanding HIV Prevention With College-Going Black Women
Gendered communication among young people in Mexico
Getting to know you … young people's knowledge of their partners at first intercourse
A six‐month follow‐up of adolescents' sexual risk‐taking, HIV/Aids knowledge, and attitudes to condoms
Factors affecting condom use among adolescents
Women's Sex Talk and Men's Sex Talk
Women negotiating heterosex
Aids, adolescents, and sexual risk taking
Taboo Topics in Close Relationships
Social Construction of HIV Transmission and Prevention among Heterosexual Young Adults
Sex, gender and power
| Citations per year | 0.48 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2001 - 2024 (24) |
| Highly cited | No |