Not a member? Sign up now
June 14, 2011
But by 1988 AIDS was just starting to be picked up by the mainstream media. The thing that affected every single girl on the Upper East Side of Manhattan was the AIDS infection of Ali Gertz. Ali Gertz had been a popular girl who had gone to a private school and did everything right... everything right, until she met a cute bartender at Studio 54. She had one one-night stand, and from that she became infected with AIDS. She became a one-woman mission for AIDS awareness. She was a hero, but she was also a victim.
As a girl I remember sitting on my mom’s bedroom, playing with stickers and asking her what a “pube” was.
Soon after, someone decided that talking about sex would keep kids from having it, or if they did have it, they would have it safely. People were always asking me if I wanted to talk about sex. I endured hours of school sex-education lectures. I went to a very progressive middle school where they had our eighth grade classes go out to the local CVS to buy condoms. The hippy ideal behind this misadventure was that if we were not embarrassed we would be more apt to go off and buy condoms and use them.
My two dorky best friends and I bravely walked down West Eighty-eighth Street. We bravely went into the drugstore. My friend Stephanie was not the type to suffer fools gladly. So as we giggled insanely she took the bull by the horns and bought the prophylactics.
Later we unzipped our backpacks and placed the condoms in the center of the large wooden table. The teacher congratulated us for our courage and ability to remove money from our wallets. We then proceeded to open the condoms and put them on bananas. Even at the tender age of twelve we understood how profoundly misguided our teachers were. We weren't stupid idiots. We knew how to go into a store and buy things. Most of us smoked at least a few cigarettes a day by twelve years old. We weren't short bus riders. Kids have unsafe sex because they think they are invincible not because they are too stupid to buy condoms. It did not create a class of safe-sex zealots, as I think our teachers might have hoped. It did however make sex seem somehow unsexy.
I am my mother's worst bourgeois nightmare. I live on the Upper East Side. I have three children — all by the same man! I never slept with a man who wore cowboy boots. I have never been to a sex club. I have never had a Dominican divorce. I did, however, go to rehab, but that is for "the most drugs I ever had" anthology or possibly "the where did my teens go" anthology. I am a low-rent yuppie, shuttling my children back and forth to the various and sundry activities and involving myself in the Parents' Association. I am the person my grandmother and mother would have watched in silent scorn. I sometimes tell my children that my most important job is taking care of them. I am not saying that I am a better mother than my mother. In fact, I am probably a worse mother than my mother, but I am a more traditional, or should we say, repressed mother than my mother. For example, the great and talented writer Julie Klam tells her daughter to call her vagina her front. She shows this as an example of her repression. I call this an example of her brilliance.
Maybe I would have been more slutty, if I hadn't grown up watching my mother saunter around our town house au natural, past the pictures of naked lesbians fooling around. Or maybe it was all the book readings I went to growing up. Or possibly it was the trauma of sitting through my mother's fourth wedding and listening to my mother call my stepfather a "horny Boy Scout." It was a phrase I did not soon forget. In fact it still haunts me to this day.
Kids have unsafe sex because they think they are invincible not because they are too stupid to buy condoms.
There is also a slim but real chance that this is just who I am. That growing up surrounded by sex did not make me a prude. Though it is true that my mother's generation needed to rebel, to free themselves. Whereas my generation was already free. There was no need for us to fight the power because we were the power. We were the advertising dollars that the consumer goods industry fought for. We had all the rights we needed and possibly more. We didn't need to fight for birth control. We didn't need to fight for the right to choose. We didn't need to fight for the right to vote. There was no reason for us to feel guilty about having sex before marriage. There was nothing to fight against. We didn't need to burn our bras, so we burnt our CDs. And perhaps that's why I'm neither a lover nor a fighter.
Molly Jong-Fast is the author of The Social Climber's Handbook: A Novel. Excerpted with permission from Sugar in My Bowl: Real Women Write About Real Sex.
Commentarium (57 Comments)
Honestly, this is one of the worst sentences I have ever read: "The 1980s in New York City were a time of contradictions — a time of limousines riding by homeless people, a time of the richest and the poorest as neighbors, living side by side, stealing from the other."
I don't mean to be the "anonymous jerk on the internet", but I usually really like Nerve, and this article really disappointed me. It had a wonderful subject, and completely squandered it.
I think I came on your mother a few years ago every night for a month.
Also, although I agree that we have a lot more freedom than past generations, we are far from complete sexual liberation and empowerment. The right to choose still faces plenty of opposition to the point that some people don't truly have access. It seems like that closing was written because it sounded good, not because it's truthful.
yes indeed, it is not "her generation" that "was the power", unless we are defining "her generation" not just by birth-date, but also by geographic location, class, cultural access, race, and citizenship.
Agree with the post above, and most of the one above it. It seems like the main point was "yippee, women are all free to be and do whatever they want now so I get to feel smug about my marriage and judge my mother for her multiple marriages, and tell my daughter to call her vagina her 'front'" This essay is just ignorant judgmental prattle.
I think your comment was more ignorant judgmental prattle than the essay. Her tone is not smug and she's just observing the differences between generations and parenting.
@RJ
Agreed.
Jesus christ. Well I liked it, and I couldn't care less if one sentence was a bit sloppy. It's good to have someone tell a different kind of story on here for once, and I can relate to the author. I didn't feel she was smug either, or judging her mother. Even if was so what? Someone who got married 4 times clearly had a few issues, maybe she deserves to be judged a little. .
My thoughts exactly.
I feel I can relate to the author too. I'm happy to be married to the same guy and that I haven't been too scalded by the promiscuous culture of NYC.
Yes bad grammar and not thinking through your sentences or your ideas. But an unabashedly honest (for her) view which I'm saddened by. Being one of the previous generation, it's a shame that our work in the direction of sexual freedom may be contributing to a lack of appreciation of one of the greatest joys of being alive. She did bring to light some good points though. If you have nothing to fight for, you may be left with little desire. The real problem with her life summary is that there is still PLENTY to fight for. She just chooses to ignore it.
Great points.
I liked this article . I agree with AJ, nerve does lots of stories of people who have multiple marriages and live like the mother in this article but not everyone lives like that.It gives perspective,just because you don't like that perspective doesn't give you the right to slander it.That makes you ignorant and judgmental. I can relate to what she said about not having something to rebel against.Teenagers and young adults are often breeding grounds for new (or recycled) ideas so what I got from this article was "what do you get when there's nothing left to fight for?what do you do when you have it all?"
"what do you get when there's nothing left to fight for?what do you do when you have it all?" -- you become a conservative prick, that's what!
Great and refreshingly different article! Don't concern yourself with labels - bourgeoisie, yuppie, prude....whatever, you sound like a truly free person who've made a decision to live the type of life that she wants, don't let small minded people convince you that you are somehow "oppressed" by your current lifestyle, they're the ones who are oppressed by conformity of their own creation. After all, conformity comes in different shades and colors.... as illustrated by LM's response in calling your article a "judgmental prattle".
I fail to see how disagreeing with her writing is conforming. To what standards, precisely?
You're right about one thing, Val, the author is TOTALLY free-- which is why she carries her privilege like a banner. For the rest of us, for those who are still struggling and worrying about what seem like they should be basic rights as human beings, it rings a bit hollow. The author is 100% free from oppression and that's why it may come off as "prattle". Not necessarily judgmental, just shallow and lacking in empathy.
Dee, as I said before conformity comes in different shades and colors, I don't know you(I apologize in advance if my impression is incorrect), but judging by your comment you seem to be a conformist of the sort that believes that women like her are somehow detrimental to freedom of choice, this is just another type of conformity. I assume you live in a first world country, please tell me which basic rights you've been deprived of, people who are born in free countries seem to loose sight of what's truly a deprivation of basic human rights means. I myself was born and grew up in a third world, therefore it always amuses me when people hyperventilate about lack of rights when in fact they live in a free society and already enjoy them.
I truly don't give a fuck how someone lives their life so your impression that I think the way she lives her life is somehow harmful to MY freedom is untrue. I think that spouting hyperbole about having nothing to fight for is incorrect and myopic, however. The author has no sway but that people are saying this, that this a worldview that someone could have is concerning.
And yes, I live in a first world country. The kind of country cut 18 million dollars in funds to international planned parenthood; to decrease education and women's rights in third world countries for bullshit moral reasons because some judgmental pricks don't believe that people in other countries deserve to have the right to make their choice, or to prevent it or to practice self care.. this is the kind of funding that saves lives with basic reproductive education and makes the world a kinder place to live in.
So basically you're saying; just because it's worse somewhere else means that we can't POSSIBLY be deprived of rights in a first world country and everyone should just shut up and except it because the third world is worse?
I assume you think I'm talking of myself; no, I am lucky to NOT be deprived of anything currently but I fight viciously and advocate for those who are. And there are many. From marriage to abortion to labour to trans rights to homelessness to drug abuse, there are many. Open up your newspaper sometime and get back to me on that.
What manner of conformity is it to ask that people look at their privilege, not sweep it under the rug and question social roles, class roles, gender roles even? To question that which is deemed socially acceptable is the exact opposite of conformity and I suggest you revisit your definition sometime.
Dee, you are very angry and frustrated, your problem seems to be that you fail to realize that the world is not coming to an end, in fact our generation has it better than anyone else in the past. You say "open up a newspaper" you've already suggested it to someone else in the comment section, you assume that no one else reads or is aware of what's going on in the world, that's very condescending and frankly stupid. You give an impression of a very young person, college student or someone in his/her 20's, who haven't experienced some real life yet. You think of yourself as an open minded freedom fighter, but the fact that this article rallied you up so much just underlines your inability to accept other people's perspectives and ideas, you are a conformist to your world view.
Ah yes. The old "You're too young and dumb, you wouldn't understand" line. And you call ME condescending. That anyone who had "experienced real life" wouldn't care about social issues is a bizarre and spurious line of reasoning. I'd expect people who have experienced real life and real trouble would certainly care.
If there was no social unrest at any point in history, nothing would be accomplished. That kind of indifferent attitude to life serves only you, the same as Ms J-F. So you agree, then that you are informed of what's going on it the world but comparatively, to third world countries and the past we should just give it up and sit back and enjoy the ride?
You give the impression of a person who doesn't give a shit about others.
I think I'd rather come off young than uncaring, Val.
I'm also from a developing country and I thank you, Dee, for being critical and self-aware, in a way that Val could (obviously) never comprehend being.
Val, be serious: you are a conformist. You come from a "third-world" country and think you made it (you probably have fantasies that you were "chosen" to escape your situation in that country while those poor idiots left behind... their suffering is obviously their own fault-- I know your type. It disgusts me.) And then you come here and embrace conservative gender-role playing and are self-satisfied and smug and call people actually fighting for justice conformists?? THAT's conformist! Go read a couple of history books. Howard Zinn it's where it's at, baby!
I agree with Marc. This is a fascinating subject and I applaud the author for attacking it, but the writing is simply abysmal; there are countless spelling and grammar mistakes, distracting parenthetical phrases, no development of ideas, and many more issues. I'd rather read a boring or clichéd but well-written story than something like this. I'm disappointed, Nerve.
not to mention totally absent of any acknowledgment of her very specific class and race location, and general privilege.
Why is telling "her daughter to call her vagina her front" brilliant? I teach a university course on human sexuality and not once, in hundreds of essays, has a student written that she regrets having received too much accurate information about her body and sexuality from her parents.
Very interesting. Any online literature that you would recommend on this?
Leaving aside issues of grammar and style, I find this essay very upsetting. I certainly agree that not everyone needs to be a bohemian - indeed, I would hardly qualify for that title - but the idea that there is nothing left to fight for in the realm of sexual freedom reveals a frightening level of self-absorption. I can't help but be reminded of the Republican tendency of saying (through their actions if not words), "I have mine, so screw you." The author has freedom of choice, in regards to both her marriage and body, but that's an exception afforded to her by money and the happenstance that she falls within the majority - and I suspect that even her freedom is curtailed by the expectations of the social circles in which she moves even if she hasn't had occasion to test those boundaries.
Yes, this.
The whole last paragraph is where I felt it all unraveled and turned into a classist nightmare. Because sure, for a "bourgeoisie nightmare" and "low rent yuppie" there might not be battles that need to be fought. But it isn't an equal playing field, especially in the realm of sex and right to choose and to say that "we had all the rights we needed and possibly more." is very myopic. I don't care how you live your life but please, recognize that others aren't afforded the same privileges before making clunky, sweeping generalizations about "rights". You don't even fucking know, sister.
absolutely, both of you said it better than i did in my bit of a rant above. I have no problem with the author's lifestyle and I don't think she is necessarily oppressed by it. I used the word "prattle" because it connotes childish self-absorption, which she has in droves. Her mock shock and horror at the life situation she is clearly congratulating herself for, in contrast to her mother's choices (i.e. "all by the same man!") Is also just plain nasty.
Definitely some weirdness towards her mom, who is an excellent writer IMO.
But basically, take off the blinders and read the news for one damn day before you start writing such garbage.
The writing is terrible, and screw you for your reference to the "short bus riders".
So, as we watch politicians attempt to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding and circumscribe women's ability to get abortions as much as possible, and as we (still!) hear the suggestion that the women who accuse high-ranking men of rape "asked for it," the daughter of Erica Jong smugly suggests that perhaps we have too many rights and freedoms and acts like her myopia and judgmental attitude is some sort of virtue.
And by the way, I am closer to her age than to Erica Jong's.
Yep, reminds me of Alice Walker's awful ungrateful brat of a daughter.
I agree with everyone here. I have no problem with prudes, virgins, closed marriages, whatever -- but even within this article the author has, ironically, the kind of slut-shaming mentality that she's saying no longer exists. She is congratulating herself for her prudishness throughout the essay because she believes it makes her better than someone slutty. That idea didn't fall into her head from the heavens.
Also, yes, agreed with everyone above that she has completely ignored her privilege in saying that there's nothing left to fight for. So many states still have sodomy laws on the books. Reproductive rights are under attack across the nation. Rape, assault, and child sexual abuse all happen every day. If you think there's nothing worth fighting over, you're blind as fuck.
Also, normally I like that Nerve keeps the writing quite raw, but it was distracting in this essay. And then to find out that she's a professional novelist -- ugh.
Side note: (Of course Erica Jong did have a threesome with a certain hideous feminist author who could be described as MC Hammer if MC Hammer were a white lesbian. Portia de Rossi she is not. Hell, Andrea Dworkin she is not.)
That is sad. So to have sex with someone they need to be pretty?
Of course, Dee. An unattractive person could never be a satisfying lover!
Well, yes: most of us don't find sex satisfying with people whom we consider unattractive, and if we think someone's especially unattractive we'd rather not think of them as being anyone's lover. The essay sucks, but no one would be squawking if she mentioned being repulsed by the fact that her mom was having a threesome with an extremely unattractive (to her) guy. Maybe the subtext too is that her mom was having sex with Ms. Hammer because of who she was socially and professionally, rather than because of any real attraction...which in turn suggests that much of the sexual activity in that scene was undertaken with a calculating eye. (Which would hardly be a surprise.)
The author obviously has some remnants of a disturbing childhood affecting her to this day. With that said, she is not totally crazy and she does have some good points about misguided teachers. It is interesting to hear thoughts about life from children of open relationships.
Very startling and sad to see Erica Jong, author of "Fear of Flying," referred to as "the mother in this article" (by "Wait!").
The new prudo-bourgeoisie is becoming tiresome. It's the 50s again, with more quality coffee choices.
Lol, "prudo-bourgeoisie", somehow I don't think you yourself belong to struggling proletariat. Hipster musings on life and society...... now that's tiresome.
You are tiresome. Take your head out of your butt please.
Too many sanctimonious New Yorkers commenting today. Lighten up, people! This is but one voice, the daughter of a much stronger voice.
I'm sure growing up the son or daughter of famous people is absolutely perfect!
Well, after all of the reader outrage and scorn, I still think Jong-Fast has an interesting and unique perspective. And despite what some of the haters have implied, I don't think she ever said that true sexual equality exists in the world, in America, or in NYC. What she was speaking from was her own subjective experience, of living in a world so "liberated" and sex-obsessed that sex lost any sense of daring or playful exploration. That may not be your experience, but it's hers, and it's one that others likely share. Also, I shudder to think that someone (whether male or female) should ever feel embarrassed to say that they think raising their kids is the most important thing they do.
No, I'm with you on all of that, and if that had been what she said in her essay, I would have found it interesting and enjoyable. Unfortunately, that is not what she said.
First, she does suggest in her final paragraph that women do not have to fight anymore and have all the rights they need "and possibly more." Second, she is just so childishly mean and nasty that one can't like her by the end. I read something great recently that actually accomplishes the things you said. It was Anne Roiphe's memoir, "Art and Madness." She talks about her experiences in the extremely sexually liberated 60s and 70s New York literary elite and ultimately rejects much of what they practiced. And she names all the people and is very tough on them. But she is nuanced and doesn't come off as a callow, stupid teenager. And, by the way, she is an actual writer. Molly J-F is only given an audience because of her family, and she is just so cruel and sarcastic and petty about them and all that they accomplished. It throws her lack of skill with the English language into even more stark relief.
It's interesting how people can read the same article and interpret it so differently, the author wasn't mean, childish or nasty, I found she was frustrated with her family and frankly there might have been a lot of things that happened in her family that we simply don't know about. There is no reason to fume over a life story that offers a different perspective than the world which you inhabit.
Oh, and -- I would say that she and people like her do hurt all of our rights. She is a member of our cultural and economic elite, and she thinks women's rights are a joke. We need people with her wealth and cultural clout to fight, and, instead, she just thinks that women's rights is kind of an abstract topic -- as well as an embarrassing one to be taken up only by ugly, overly promiscuous lesbians.
It sounds like a reflection of generations from an individuals perspective. When you are exposed so much to one thing, do you not want something different? She sums it up. Just a thought. --- Four women in four cities take on 365 dates between them. Visit www.3six5dates.com to find out more!
Nothing good can come of tell your daughter to call her vulva her "front."
Thanks to rem for using the word "vulva" instead of "vagina." It's a telling mistake that Ms. Jong-Fast makes here, to limit her notation of the female genitalia like so many others do to just the part that's interesting to a male partner. I could get behind this article, at least to the point of feeling the author had a valid and interesting perspective, until the bit about a girl's "front," though the last few sentences were what really did in any respect I had.
Reading comments like LadyJ's above reminds me why I come to Nerve (it overall has an educated and smart readership).
Heckuva good job. I sure apperciate it.
Keep on writing and chugigng away!
Your writing skills pale in comparison to your mother's. Hell, I'm a hydrologist, and I'm a better writer than you'll ever hope to be. I'm guessing that your best bet is to stick with the child-rearing gig. And don't forget to thank your talented mother for making all those millions, because when your kids are grown, and you realize that you have no talent and no marketable skills, and you look at your husband and wonder why you married him? That money might come in real handy for you.
Yup, that'll do it. You have my appreicatoin.
"Though it is true that my mother's generation needed to rebel, to free themselves. Whereas my generation was already free. There was no need for us to fight the power because we were the power."
- To say your generation is free is a lie. Maybe certain privileged first world women are free, but to suggest that there is no need to fight is an insult to your mother's generation. Spoiled much? I can only hope that outside this excerpt you consider the other power struggles that still exist, including, but not limited to women's rights.
"We were the advertising dollars that the consumer goods industry fought for."
- Please tell me that this isn't how you measure power.
"We had all the rights we needed and possibly more. We didn't need to fight for birth control. We didn't need to fight for the right to choose. We didn't need to fight for the right to vote. There was no reason for us to feel guilty about having sex before marriage. There was nothing to fight against. We didn't need to burn our bras, so we burnt our CDs."
- Hi, still fighting for the right to choose! Oh, and about that whole birth control thing ... yeah, that's under attack again too. These problems, these fights, never really went away. Instead, people like you decided the fight was over and now we're paying the price.
"And perhaps that's why I'm neither a lover nor a fighter."
- Because of the women (and some men) of your mother's generation, you had those aforementioned rights. I don't care if you're happily married or happily in an open relationship. What scares me is to see you so undervalue their efforts and contributions to human rights issues by burying your head in the sand and pretending that all women of all means everywhere have the same rights as you. As others have said, you are treating women's rights like some sort of joke. It is because of this complacency that we as a country (and globally) are sliding backwards on issues of women's/human rights.