Why are some gay men choosing to have sex without using condoms?
by William J. Mann, for Frontiers

James (not his real name) has a secret: He doesn't use condoms.

"I just can't," he says. "I can't maintain an erection with one on. I find them revolting to touch."

Among his friends, he imagines, there are others who feel the same way. "But no one talks about it. We talk about having sex, about our tricks and our boyfriends, but we don't talk about whether we use condoms or not. It's like we don't want to know."

Eighteen years into the AIDS epidemic, after more than a decade of safer-sex messages, there is a new phenomenon among many gay men. It's called barebacking, or (with a nod to Erica Jong) the rubberless fuck. Whereas once the cutting edge of AIDS activism was about sneaking condoms into high schools, today the avant-garde activist is more likely to be holding a placard saying, "Just Say No to Latex."

To many, it seems crazily, dangerously absurd. "After so many years of living with this damn virus," says Ron Prinz, a gay man and activist with AIDS living in New York, "I cannot even begin to fathom this debate about barebacking. How anyone, after 18 years, can suggest fucking without condoms is beyond me. It's been proven that unprotected sex—cumming up someone's butt, to be blunt—spreads HIV. Period." 

Well, not always. As porn actor-writer-activist Tony Valenzuela has pointed out, even using condoms isn't always 100 percent safe. Valenzuela, who has long been open about his HIV-positive status, has become one of the most visible and controversial figures in the debate, yet he is careful and thoughtful in his responses to questions, perhaps because of what he and others have perceived as media distortions in the past.

"Telling the truth is always responsible," he says, "even if the truth is confusing or disturbing. We need to provide gay men with as much information as possible regarding the risks of unprotected sex, then allow them to do what they will with that information. People can make informed decisions so that even if they bareback, they do it as safely as possible."

"I know I'm taking a risk, of sorts," says James, who, at least since his last HIV test two years ago, has remained negative. "But I take a risk every time I get into a car. The odds of my getting killed in a car crash are actually pretty high. Yet it's a risk worth taking if I want to live my life fully."

"There are certain risks one takes in life," says Prinz. "But you can sometimes minimize those risks. You wear a seat belt in a car. You wear a condom when you fuck." 

Risk-taking and Responsibility: Defining the Debate

Therein lies the crux in the current barebacking debate: What is acceptable risk? And isn't it, ultimately, entirely subjective? Ever since the issue came to the forefront a few years ago, popularized by online chat rooms and the reporting of longtime activist Michelangelo Signorile, barebacking has received sensationalistic coverage in the media, both gay and straight. Advocates of sexual choice, like the group Sex Panic!, have been accused of (at best) irresponsibility and (at worst) murderous intent. Meanwhile, reports of "conversion parties"—wherein HIV-negative men come to be fucked by HIV-positive men in the hopes of seroconverting—have made such terms as "bug-chasers" (negative men wanting to seroconvert) and "gift-givers" (positive men willing to make their wishes reality) part of the gay lexicon.

Bareback advocates say the practice is different from a simple definition of unsafe sex. In a fact sheet presented at the Gay Men's Health Summit in Boulder, CO, last month, barebacking is defined as "a sophisticated level of organizing around the premeditation, eroticization and social identity based on a desire for anal sex without condoms." Those who identify as "barebackers" do not regret the experience after sex, as can happen for some others who simply forego the condom in a reckless moment. Barebacking involves "informed choice and conscious decision-making," and has evolved over the past few years into a separate subculture and social network.

Many health educators and activists, barebackers say, either can't or won't accept this last part: that those who choose to bareback have formed a community. Michael Scarce is the author of Smearing the Queer: Science and Gay Male Sexual Health and the pioneering study Male on Male Rape: The Hidden Toll of Stigma and Shame. He's also become one of barebacking's most articulate advocates.

Scarce says, "Unfortunately, most health organizations know nothing about barebacking as a subculture—its norms, motivations, the demographics of those who participate and so on. There is a great deal of research quantifying the number and frequency of acts of anal sex without condoms, but none that distinguishes between barebacking and unsafe sex." 

Going without condoms, it can be assumed, has been some men's practice ever since the beginning of the epidemic. But it's been the Internet that has given such men a sense of camaraderie, even community.  Barebacking itself was a term coined so that like-minded men could find each other online. Today, many proponents of the rubberless fuck see themselves as a minority within a minority, and seem remarkably like militant gay activists a decade ago, chanting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"

How prevalent is the practice? Who are these people? It's difficult to say, but Scarce points to a study he recently completed of 826 men who self-identify their behavior as barebacking. Fifty-one percent of the respondents were HIV-negative, defeating the notion among some that barebacking was merely a trend among positive individuals. 

Valenzuela, who says the primary factor influencing his decision to not use condoms was the fact that he is already HIV-positive, insists that the "issue is completely different for positive guys than for negative guys."  There are different practical and ethical decisions each must make.

Yet, as many health care workers point out, the risks of reinfection are very real for positive men, who might perhaps pick up a more virulent strain of the virus. In addition, according to Dr. Timothy Huber, a psychologist and AIDS educator in Wallingford, CT, there is also the risk of becoming immune to medications. 

Barebacking advocates say it is about informed choice, that taking such risks may, to an individual, be worth it. "Sex without condoms is a meaningful and valuable sex act for many people," says Valenzuela.  "This should not be belittled."

Belittled, no. But opponents of barebacking do question how many men, encouraged or titillated by the barebacking talk of sophisticated experts, pay little heed to such concepts as informed choice or conscious decision-making.

"The buzzword has become 'harm reduction' instead of 'prevention,' it seems," says Prinz. "I simply feel it's irresponsible on the part of these people to preach the joys of rubberless sex. Lots of people will just see it as a clarion call to do what they want and engage in reckless behavior. These so-called leaders might think of the consequences, but Joe Schmoe who happens onto their Web site might not."

Asked about consequences and responsibility, Scarce says, "I'm not quite certain I understand what you mean by 'responsibilities,' but I can flesh out a number of points for consideration. Harm-reduction work has always been controversial in the eyes of policy-makers, legislators and particularly high-level administrators in health organizations who are out of touch with the daily reality of those they attempt to serve. Being in close touch with a particular community or target population forces one to choose a more realistic method, meeting people where they are, rather than where we would like them to be."

Harm reduction is simply a less absolute approach to prevention efforts—lowering the bar, according to some, and more pragmatic, according to others. Educators say they have two main concerns associated with the kind of non-condom model of harm reduction Scarce describes. First, it could lull some people into a false sense of security, and second, it could severely dilute the message of more traditional and mainstream safer sex education efforts. 

Scarce says that he's suggesting that "barebacking harm reduction should be tailored and delivered to bareback subcultures—very different than posting the same message on a billboard" for the general public. 

The Barebacking Community: Who are These People Anyway?

Still, that doesn't preclude others getting wind of it. "I am concerned about the message it sends," says Huber. "This is such a new and very complex phenomenon. I understand and support harm-reduction efforts aimed at barebacking communities. I think that's necessary. Still, I remain concerned about the effect barebacking messages may have on larger, less-informed populations."

James, who doesn't really see himself as part of a barebacking community, but who nevertheless has no problem with calling his sexual activity barebacking, thinks that health educators often don't give the public enough credit for making the right choices. "I decided that doing away with a condom was the right thing for me. If a guy doesn't want to have sex with me because of that, I accept it. I don't try to force him.  Barebacking isn't about that."

For James, it was the physical pleasure of non-latex sex that led to his decision—a rationale Prinz finds chilling. "Just so he can have a better orgasm, he puts himself at risk of a horrible, gristly death. Not to mention others. Something's not right here."

Huber says one has to wonder about the pathology of barebackers. "I'm sure there are as many reasons for engaging in this behavior as there are people involved," he says. "But, as a psychologist, I'd have to ask if there are masochistic tendencies at work. Do they have perhaps a major depression? Many of my clients have seen so many of their friends die. Some who have eventually tested positive have expressed relief to me that they finally 'have it,' so they can stop wondering if they ever will. It's an overcompensation from the fear."

Such a response has been seen more often over the last several years. Many HIV-negative men in support groups around the country have expressed ironic feelings of exclusion and inadequacy. "Being HIV-positive meant carrying a certain 'badge of honor' in some gay communities," says one activist. 

Consequently, at some barebacking parties, detailed on various sites online, a ritual is performed wherein a newly diagnosed HIV-positive attendee is welcomed into the "club." Huber says he has to question whether some of these people "are so disenfranchised that this is the only club they can belong to."

Others practice barebacking for the sheer erotic thrill. Not simply because it feels better without latex, as James expresses, but because there is a certain ecstasy to be had by fucking or being fucked when, ultimately, the result could be death. "It's kinky," says one man, located via an online barebacking posting, who emphatically refused to give his name. "I enjoy snuff films. I have sexual fantasies of being hurt or maimed or even killed. I can't explain why, but when I'm getting fucked by an HIV-positive man, I am so turned on. And I think it's true for him too, that he's turned on by the thought he might be giving it to me.  Hey, if we're both consensual about it, who's to argue with us?"

Huber says, "I'd be curious to know about the early sexual fixations of these people. Obviously not all [barebackers] would have these fixations, but if some do—if they have a death-wish fixation—then, frankly, they're trying to work it out in a very unhealthy way."

Others might manifest a "daredevil personality," Huber says. "Studies have shown people who don't wear seat belts in cars tend also not to practice safer sex." For these people, living on the edge of danger, facing death consciously, gives their lives a thrilling purpose.

Finally, Huber says there are also those who are simply tired of practicing safer sex, who want to live sexually the way their predecessors did before AIDS. "Look, the public health care system has failed us.  Look how many people have died. Why should we trust it? Why should we believe the safer-sex message?"

Given that distrust, many people perhaps believe there is another way, one not sanctioned by the system, but at least as effective. "I guess I'd agree with that," says James. "Barebacking isn't a perfect science, but neither is sex with condoms."

Scarce adds, "Many HIV-prevention experts are appalled at the idea of non-condom harm reduction. What they don't understand is that absolutist approaches to HIV prevention are what gave rise to barebacking in the first place. Gay men have now organized around their right and desire to fuck without condoms, forming in some cases a community and identity around it, all in opposition to the Just Say No version of safer-sex education. Messages like 'Use a condom every time' are reductive, misleading and limiting in their application to the real world." 

Extreme Passions on Both Sides

Yet other activists, acknowledging their fear of dilution of traditional safer-sex education, say making barebacking a part of the reasoned discussion only serves to make the situation more dangerous in a time when new cases of AIDS are rising among younger gay men. "There's a subliminal message out there," says one anti-barebacking activist who asked not to be named, "that with all these new drugs AIDS is a manageable disease and will probably one day be cured. A diagnosis of AIDS no longer automatically means death. So there's no imperative anymore to be super-careful. Now along come these barebackers, whose message seems to be, 'Whatever, so long as you decide it's right.' We're ripe for a whole new flood  of the epidemic."

Some of what's found online plays into these kinds of fears. The Internet has been the catalyst for much of the barebacking community's evolution, fostering a sense of self and purpose. At the Web site www.barebackjack.com, visitors are greeted by the following message: "In here, clothing and condoms are not an option. You got a problem with that? Then get the @+*% OUT NOW!"

In a slightly softer tone, the introduction continues: "Remember...Bareback sex is not illegal or immoral!  Straight folks fuck without condoms all the time...Barebacking is one of the most natural, intimate and pleasurable sexual experiences two men can have—at least according to those of us who don't care to use condoms while fucking."

The site boasts "uncensored ads from men around the world" and listings for "one hundred percent bareback parties—some of which might be in your area!" They are, in fact. These parties aren't just occurring in cities with larger gay communities like Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, but also in such provincial cities as Hartford, CT, and Knoxville, TN, in nearly every state of the union, and in several Canadian and European cities. There are also photo galleries with "amateur photos taken of guys engaging in skin-to-skin unprotected sex."

"Barebackjack.com," writes the site's Webmaster, "came about in response to a growing international desire for a high-quality Web site geared to men interested in engaging in unprotected sex. It is a place where men can be open about the joys of raw sex without feeling like outcasts."

There's this disclaimer: "This site is not here to persuade you into performing intercourse without condoms or jeopardizing your health...This site has been created in celebration of our freedom to choose the intimacy and sensation of barebacking over the pragmatism of 'safer' play. It is also here to inform, educate, entertain and potentially connect men who prefer their sex unwrapped and have already made the decision to do so."

There are listings for "conversion parties," although the site does have a disclaimer: "There is frequent mention of 'conversion,' or the act of purposely giving another man HIV through sexual contact. While the Webmaster does not advocate conversion or other dangerous or illegal activities, space is given to those of a different mind."

Perusing the party lists is upsetting, even for some advocates of freedom of choice. To wit, a conversion party planned for last month in Queens, NY is described thus: 10 to 15 positive men wanted, where "one neg bottom will take all loads." In San Diego this month, an "Inoculation Party" is planned: "Looking to set up a Bug-chaser/Gift-giver party...Neg bottoms who want it, poz tops that wanna give it or others who are hot to see it happen (or join in maybe). Could also film infection ritual." 

Some parties, such as one planned for this month in West Hollywood, insist all guests must be positive.  Others, like one planned in the South Bay area of Los Angeles, ask that everyone be negative. But most parties are mixed, and hosts seem to assume conversion is inevitable. A party in Maryville, TN, prefers all negative guests, "but if you are poz, all I ask is that you be honest with the guys that you get it on with." In Long Beach, CA, where a barebacking orgy is held every two months on a Saturday night, the hosts say "HIV status [is] unimportant—respect your partner if he wants to know." They find about 90 percent of their guests are positive; the status of the other 10 percent is unknown.

It is this idea of "conversion" that is most troubling for many. "It's one thing if a guy says I'm willing to take this risk because I think fucking without a condom is hot," says Prinz. "It's entirely another to go into a situation saying they want to be infected—at least in my book, after living with this horrible virus and being so horribly sick and now taking these horrible drugs for it. If someone actively wants this disease, they are already sick in my book. Hey, they can have my virus—I don't want it." 

The Media Distortion

"Barebacking, or any act of anal sex without a condom," says Scarce, "is usually pathologized. An expert therapist is often quoted who suggests the 'origin' of such behavior is low self-esteem. Perhaps this is true in some cases, but low self-esteem has become the El Niņo of gay men, responsible for everything from circuit parties to domestic violence."

Part of the problem, Valenzuela believes, is media distortion of the barebacking message. "The media has turned the issue of sex without condoms into a pathology, rarely focusing on how common and widespread the practice is, even among heterosexuals," he says. "The truth is, people forego condom use for a thousand different reasons, some misinformed and unhealthy, but others with knowledge that they're doing so safely."

Indeed, Scarce has drawn up a list of pointers for "Safer Barebacking" that has been printed in various media outlets. Yet most press coverage, he says, has been sensationalistic and highly biased. 

He points to a headline in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this year that read: "Russian Roulette Sex Parties: Rise in Gay Fringe Group's Unsafe Practices Alarms AIDS Experts." He claims the reporter, Sabin Russell, "sensationalized the hell out of the subject, taking quotes out of context and providing misleading information." 

For example, Scarce says, Russell wrote the article in such a way that made the bareback house parties in San Francisco sound like inoculation parties, in which the purpose of the event is seroconversion, when they are expressly not about that. Scarce was interviewed for the article, and was photographed holding up the "No Condoms" graphic from an article he'd written for POZ magazine. When the Chronicle story appeared, it looked "as if I was telling people not to use condoms. The whole experience was disgusting," Scarce says.

When asked directly if he himself practices barebacking, he backs off from answering. "This is a question I am refusing to answer for now," he explains. "I have so very little trust in the media's ability to cover this topic rationally and without sensation. Either way I answer this question, people will use the response to dismiss my work. I'm writing a book on the subject in which I'll be much more candid about my own experiences." 

Gift-giving: A Complex Issue

Huber finds it ironic that gift-giver has become a term used in barebacking communities. "In my practice, I have had clients talk about the gift of HIV," he says. "But it's been a spiritual gift. A gift they didn't ask for, but that once they found themselves [infected with HIV] they were able to use the experience for spiritual transformation. It enabled them to look deeper within and grow, awakened them to a greater sense."

Whether or not this is what barebackers mean when they use the term gift-giver as one who gives the virus to another is debatable. "Perhaps some do," Huber says. "But my clients have never before wanted to be infected."

James, who has talked online with men who identify as gift-givers, says if he knew someone was positive, he might not have anal sex with them. Or he might. "I'm not sure I'd look on getting the virus as a gift," he says. "I think that might be a very extreme position."

As Valenzuela has pointed out, the topic is radically different for positive and negative individuals. Indeed, it is a highly complex phenomenon, one that no Web site, no health summit, no article can adequately or fairly explain to all sides' satisfaction. 

"We are trying to reduce a very complex issue here, and I don't think it can be done," says Huber. "We can't 'explain' it. First of all, it's too new. There are only now beginning to be studies. This all just theorizing we're doing on both sides. I have a feeling that the complexity of the issue is because of the complexity of all the individuals involved. We can't simply broad-brush it. We need to listen and learn. All sides." 

COPYRIGHT 1997-1999 ONLINE PARTNERS.COM, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.