Safe Sex is No Fun

[Paul Mackin]

On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, RICHARD ROMEO wrote: (speaking of Infinite Jest)

> It's also  
> missing the sex preoccupations in Pynchon's works. (for the good IMHO)   

How is one to read this difference? There are of course obviously
different thematic requirements. A story about a sex-sniffing rocket
needs a whole lot of sex to sniff out. Whereas too much sex in a book
about drug-, competitive-sport-, and entertainment-addiction might
take the edge off the main show.

Another type explanation would involve the zeitgeists of the eras in which
the authors worked. (Can a zeitgeist change in 20 years?)

The seventies were a period in America when the sex revolution went 
through the roof so to speak. Having sex with someone became like saying 
"howdy", as it pretty much was for Slothrop in bombed out London and
through the Zone.

The careful-nineties-and-beyond has a problem with this approach.
The hero of the book, big Don Gately, has never Xed (Wallace's term 
throughout) a woman except in a drugged or drunken state and then
his _main_ interest was  to "promote" (another ubiquitous term in
the book) drugs or other merchadise in her possession. Abstinence
_is_ a recommended part of AA therapy but one wonders still. Don is
quite taken with one member of the opposite sex--during his reforming
days--but he seems almost afraid of her. With others he is reticient and 
hyper-respectful. 

Can Don's attitude toward I-V administered drugs be a clue? Back then
he would only resort to the needle when nothing else is available. And 
he must see with his own eyes the package seal broken. For a 
reforming addict and drunkard, a reformed enforcer and second story man,
and even once (accidently) a murderer, Don is a very cautious fellow.

Question: at this rate will the Telecommunications Act of the Year
of the Depend Adult Undergarment _need_ a "decency clause".
				
				P.