reframing

one of my interviewees used the term 'reframe' which i keep thinking about. she was referring to a guy friend who had sex with another guy, only to be asked to leave immediately afterwards. for the friend, the sex was really enjoyable. but afterwards, in being kicked out of this guy's house, the experience was 're-framed' as something quite negative. he was left feeling bad/cheap/horrible. not an uncommon experience in sex that doesn't quite work. but interestingly, the act of sex itself, the precursor to the bad stuff, also becomes tainted. the experience is summed up, wholly, as negative, despite its earlier pleasures.

i wonder... to what extent is asking people about their sexual experiences all about re-framing? they're telling their tales in the context of 'an interview by a sexual health researcher', so of course the framing will be different. even to recount something that happened several years ago demands a re-framing. memories change and shift, and the interview narrative demands clarity. the number of times interviewees say 'does that make sense?' or 'if that makes sense' is quite amazing. i think this demands reflection in my phd also. the struggle for clarity and story in the re-telling of experiences. the relationship we have is different to that of peers. they probably want to make it worth my while, and assist me where they think they can. they are not just telling stories for the sake of telling. though this is unlikely to be the case in friendships either. motivations for 'telling' probably include intimacy building, generating feedback and discussion, testing our behaviours/beliefs/contemplations in a safe and familiar place.