NSRC: National Sexuality Resource Center

  • Join Us

    Blog, talk back, and get connected in the Dialogues Network.

Home › Blogs & Talk › Christopher White's Personal Blog › GWM seeks something better than...

GWM seeks something better than bareback sex

Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 05:59:34pm   ►by Christopher White   ►

Imagine a scene with two, or more, hot, sweaty men getting naked, kissing, giving each other head, and then  fucking without using a condom.  One guy might be a dirty pig bottom and only gets fucked - maybe by two, three, or more guys.  Or maybe they switch it up and take turns fucking each other.  There's not much talking - none of that "yeah, buddy, take that cock" stuff.  And there's no music. No lame house music track over the sex sounds or worse some cheesy porn muzak that is supposed to make you feel romantic. It's just fucking. Raw fucking. Grunting, moaning, sweating, skin glistening, turning red. sofly repeating "yeah, yeah, yeah" or "oh fuck, oh fuck, oh fuck" under the breath - the perfect soundtrack.  And then the cumshots. Some guys will pull their bare dicks out and shoot on the other guy's ass, back or face. Or he'll cum in the other guy's ass and watch as it slowly leaks out. Fantasy? Reality? Both? Does it matter?

Whatever it is, it would likely be labeled as "bareback sex" or just "barebacking". Just thinking about it gets me all hot and bothered and needing to cool off.  And, yeah, I think it can be a turn on, too, within certain contexts.  Mostly, I get upset at the linguistic and political connotations of this label more than I do about any personal or public health concerns that might arise. 

The term "bareback" came into use in the late nineties to describe men who actively sought sex with other men without using a condom.  It was thought to be a backlash to the conformist messages of safe sex and safer sex of the late eighties and early nineties. The earliest portrayals of "barebackers" painted images of men who were reckless and thrill-seeking, some who even desired to be infected or to infect others with "the gift" of HIV. While it's quite possible that there were small groups of men or individuals who sought unprotected anal intercourse with a partner whose HIV status was unknown, labeling it as "barebacking" creates an unnecessary stigma against gay men and their sexual practices that I believe is politically dangerous and damaging.

Let's consider that it is possible that men make assumptions about a partner's status and thus make inappropriate decisions based on those assumptions. For example, what if an HIV+ man assumes that because his anally receptive partner does not mention his status and is willing to engage in condomless anal intercourse, then he must also be HIV+? At the same time, imagine an HIV- man assumes that his insertive partner must be HIV- as well, if he fails to mention his status. In these instances, these men may have been seeking condomless sex with a partner and engaged in faulty decision-making or they may have not set out with any intention regarding condomless sex and ended up engaging in a behavior based on faulty assumptions.  Either way, they may have unintentionally put themselves or their partner at risk for HIV infection.  What if they asked their partner first and they lied about their status? What if they'd been drinking and made their decisions under the influence of alcohol or forgot to ask about status? Does this make them reckless and irresponsible?   Or does it make them human?

I bet if we took a look at the current research regarding the incidence of condomless sex in heterosexuals we would find greater percentages of individuals reporting not using a condom with a stranger when engaging in penetrative anal or vaginal intercourse when compared to the percentage of gay men who report not using a condom during penetrative anal intercourse with a stranger.  But we would never refer to straight couples as having "bareback" sex.  That term has been reserved for the special situation of two men having condomless anal intercourse.  And I believe that it serves as a way to stigmatize and demonize sexual behaviors between two consenting,adult males - not that those behaviors need much help when it comes to the views of modern society.

Unfortunately, many in the gay community have chosen to adopt the use of "barebacking" to describe their own behaviors or to produce and market goods.  Some may say that it is a "reclaiming" of a negative term and that we empower ourselves by taking back this derogatory word.  I think that's bullshit.  From a public health perspective, condomless anal intercourse can be a concern but doesn't necessarily have to be.  Men who know their status and are willing to discuss their partners status may choose to make decisions to use a condom or not use a condom as they desire.  People tend to make mistakes and may neglect to use a condom while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. And sometimes people just make bad decisions.  Their behavior and their choices do not need to be labeled or stigmatized for anything other than they are - personal decisions about their own sexuality.

So, maybe I'm overreacting and "barebacking" should be an acceptable term for those who want to use it.  Fine. What about videos that feature barebacking?  Is this irresponsible? Even if it's just fantasy to those who watch, what about the actors who are willing to engage in these behaviors for money? So they have their actors tested. Does that make it okay?  I don't think it's legal to sell or market porn that involves murdering someone else, even if it's fake - so called "snuff" films.  Should it be?

Fine, if the market wants it, a company should be able to produce and sell it.  Even if I agreed with that, what about scholars whose research focuses on "barebacking" as a phenomenon.  If they are investigating the identity of individuals or groups, I can see the value in calling it bareback.  If they are studying behaviors, why engage in the continued stigmatization and demonization of gay men?  Why not just call it what it is, condomless sex?

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Bookmark this post on del.icio.us.
  • Digg this post on digg.com.
  • Submit this post on reddit.com.
  • Submit this post on furl.net.
  • Menéa este post en Menéame.
  • Submit this post on tec.fresqui.com.
  • Share on Facebook.

Comments

Yes! But, hmm... well...

Hi Chris, I cannot recall where I highlighted the demonization of "barebacking" among gay men but no equivocal demonization of merely "unprotected sex" among heterosexuals. There could be a few reasons underlying the difference: 1) the continued demonization of homosexuality; 2) the continued assumption that only gay people get AIDS, and probably deserve to contract the virus if they're engaging in such risky and abnormal sexual practices; 3) the false assumption that "the pill" is all you need, since unplanned pregnancy is really all heterosexuals should worry about; 4) the demonization of anal sex compared to vaginal sex (this is related to number 1). I could go on. So, if anything, we certainly need to critique why there is an obsession with barebacking among gay men, but complacency about barebacking among heterosexuals. I certainly agree that people should decide for themselves what is most pleasurable and desirable. If that means not using condoms or other forms of protection from sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy, that go for it... so long as you know the consequences. My fear is that the US does a great job of failing to educate its citizens about those consequences. In some ways, I find that those agentic decisions to skip using a condom are not fully informed. Granted, we can only know what we've discovered (i.e., research), but most people are not as sexually literate as they should be. I am in no way in favor of telling people what to do, but I'm uneasy about encouraging practices that may lead to unwanted consequences. The ideal, of course, is a sexually literate world without negative consequences of sex!

Eric Anthony Grollman on Sep 22, 2009 10:46am

I can't think of one

I'm one more to problematize the selling (especially the renaming/repackaging of 1970s condomless gay porn, which just screams of business-as-usual exploitation) of bareback porn than the use of "bareback" by gay men. I would be somewhat careful with casually discarding people's ability to reclaim a positive/negative-turned-negative-turned positive connotation to the word, although I understand your concerns surrounding the term itself from a public health perspective. I think your point about people's misunderstandings regarding their serostatus, namely the lack of communication or the misunderstandings between men in sexual contexts where one of the last things people want to do is talk about whether they are or may be seropositive. That seems to be a prominent theme in the research, and more men are addressing that point. I'm interested to see if that comes up when I commence my own interviews with gay men who bareback. I think one of the biggest problems with the term "bareback"--and my biggest reasons for advocating for the abandonment of the term, at least among researchers and prevention workers--is that it refers to so many different contexts (with some general consensus about HIV-risk contexts and intentionality) that the term is practically rendered useless. Many researchers don't (or haven't) taken the time to operationalize "bareback sex" in their studies, and some people just refer to the "common" understanding/definition rather than how they define it, and therefore avoid the issue altogether--which, depending on their research focus, may not be as problematic. The problem is that many gay men also have multiple understandings of what BB or bareback or uninhibited or raw sex is, although it seems like "condomless anal sex" is the consensus. The problem is that, if some men are seeking BB with another guy, if they are making assumptions about the other guy's serostatus based on the multiple understandings of bareback sex over the years and yet not explicitly voicing those concerns or requesting clarification, they could unintentionally put themselves in an unwanted situation, unless they aren't concerned either way, which is a personal decision and I stand by their right to do what they want as long as it's consensual and as long as they're not lying to their sex partners. I think it's very impractical--and maybe not a good thing--to standardize a general meaning of "bareback sex" as opposed to UAI, although from a public health perspective, it makes little sense to talk about bareback sex in multiple contexts. In that case, we might as well just talk about condomless anal sex, except the very loaded and politically-charged term of barebacking (or other words conveying bareback sex like raw or uninhibited) also has great significance for a lot of men, so I feel it would be a bad idea to ignore it or try to get rid of it. I think the bigger question is addressing this issue of silence or misunderstandings that surround many of gay men's sexual interactions when it comes to addressing their HIV status. I don't know if these men know how to talk about it, and goodness knows there's been alternate sexual situations where I haven't brought up questions over my own risk when I should have. How can we encourage such dialogues without ruining the moment or intensity? Perhaps an even more basic question: do a lot of us know how to get over our discomforts and explicitly talk about serostatus or risk in those moments as opposed to adhering to particular (silent) behavioral strategies? Extenuating circumstances aside, what are we afraid of? I also really liked this quote of yours: "What if they asked their partner first and they lied about their status? What if they'd been drinking and made their decisions under the influence of alcohol or forgot to ask about status? Does this make them reckless and irresponsible? Or does it make them human?"

Walter Scott Campbell on Sep 23, 2009 03:59pm