 |
By Trevor |

Lifelube has helpfully posted information on a new study published in the journal Culture, Health and Sexuality that asks 120 gay men in New York City: what exactly does the term "bareback" mean? The researchers here are trying to better understand how gay men use the term in their own lives, so I very much appreciate the spirit of the project.
The Meaning of the Term, "Bareback"
A few interesting findings about the term emerge from the project:
1) No Condoms: Obviously, most agreed "bareback" implied anal sex without condoms.
2) Natural, Intimate:Curiously, although some men defined the term using words like "natural" or "intimate", the researchers don't interrogate this at all. Obviously, I think this is a mistake because it adds another layer of social meaning onto the behavior. I would add it as another category in their findings (as I have here).
3) Intentional: Some implied that intentionality was critical. This is very interesting. For instance, when they ask a participant whether sex would be considered "bareback" if a condom breaks, one participant replies:
"Technically, I guess, briefly, unless they don’t pull out or if they continue, then yeah. But barebacking is usually a conscious choice. But I understand that is kind of complicating the situation. But if the condom breaks, then no, I don’t think so, because I think that barebacking isn’t by accident. It’s a conscious choice, unless the person’s fucked up and doesn’t know what you’re doing."
4) Risky: Risk is a critical component of the definition for some men. For instance, they asked some participants if sex would be considered "bareback" if sex without condoms between a monogamous couple where both partners are HIV-negative. Some said it would, but others said things like this:
"That’s not bareback … (Why not?) It’s not because these two guys are in a relationship. They’re in a monogamous relationship. They love each other. They’re both HIV-negative. They know their status. They’ve – it’s natural, I mean, for the gay world … But it’s just natural for them to have sex without a condom, if they know neither one has HIV or has an STD, or whatever, and they’re not sleeping around on each other."
Bareback Identity
They move from this linguistic investigation to an investigation into bareback identity. A few possibilities here:
1) "Yes, I'm a Barebacker": About 1/3 of the men involved identified as barebackers, and these men were more likely to be HIV-positive than negative. For instance, in this exchange:
I: Do you think of yourself as a barebacker?
R: Yes.
I: Is that an identity?
R: That’s an identity. That’s the truth. The truth … is the light. So I’m a barebacker, baby. And I ain’t going to sugar-coat [it] – I’m a barebacker [singing], I’m a barebacker! [laughter] OK?
I: That identity, is that, is that a private one? Is that something you –
R: I would want somebody to know? Yes, I’m a barebacker. I feel…it, it, it gives me a sense of empowerment, so to speak. I feel good about [that] shit. Yeah, I like the ass, I like to fuck and I like to get fucked. You know, and I like to be explicit. And I can get to the exact nature of what I’m about, so it empowers me. Barebacker, huh? You know, that is that term.
2) "No, I'm not": Around 1/4 of participants said that, in fact, they were not barebackers. A variety of reasons existed, including the stigma attached to the term, some men's desire to use condoms, or -- very interestingly -- "because labeling oneself as such would make others think, ‘Oh, sure, he’s a barebacker, so he’ll accept my dick inside him’." This is fascinating language here, but again the researcher's stop short of a more in-depth analysis, which is a shame. But curious that this quote is about being a bareback BOTTOM, and not a top.
3) "Maybe I am": Some indicated that they might be, or that they were only partially a barebacker because of the frequency of their having sex without condoms. For instance:
I: Do you consider yourself a barebacker?
R: Sixty percent of the times, yes, I do, mm-hmm. Yes I do. You know, because like I say I do…my best to practise safe sex, but once, you know, I meet a certain person or – it’s like – it’s like something that will go off in me that I’ll be, like wow, I would just love to feel him inside, you know? Or I would just love to run up in them and – stuff like that.
You can download the PDF of the report here, thanks to IRMA.
|
Great article, hey! Ominously, GWD e-mailed me a copy in response to seeing an ad for an event I'm running tomorrow night on barebacking in gay porn, no doubt implying such a bankrupt concept should not be given further airtime lol. And I would agree with him on that. But the Carballo-Dieguez article cites an earlier article by Gregory Tomso, and it's really worth reading because of the way it frames the focus on barebacking, bugchasing and giftgiving, and the interrogation of gay men's decision-making around unprotected sex more generally, in terms of a 'problem of violence' -- a fraudulent articulation of the answer within the terms of the question. I think the journal is Literature and Medicine and it's available via Project MUSE.