bbckresearch

Thanks so much for the response. I didn't mean to be offensive, and will rectify this. The reason why I'm trying to ask the question is not to put poz guys that way (i.e. 'out to infect people'). But rather, I'd like to discuss how some HIV-negative men are also 'out to get infected', if you will. That is, we cannot really point fingers on who's to blame for seroconversions because, if you will, everyone gets something out of it.

I'm also interested in this because it seems that there is a grey area between fantasy/reality in the forums. No doubt that many forms (or, it may be absurd to claim, but most) of sexual activities are fueled by some form of fantasy. I will be writing about the many forms of barebacking (that, while it is understood as condomless sex, it has many forms) and one of these is fantasy. Fantasy, indeed, is very powerful in these forums. But some guys I found also talk about turning fantasy into reality, a step-by-step process, or a process of evolution or progression. That is, some talk about starting with a fantasy, then perhaps having that first unintentional bareback experience (due to heat of the moment, drugs, absence of condoms, etc. etc.), then having had that first hot bareback experience, wanting to have more, etc. etc. etc. Or some may just completely stop for fear of seroconversion.

Cool, thanks for that. When I was first in contact with RT, he reminded me about this (and also from the responses from other guys) and every time I read the forums/data, this is always considered

Hey guys, As you may already be aware, I'm doing a research on the forums of the website with the kind permission from RT. I'm currently finishing up data analysis and will soon be writing up. I'm hoping that you could shed some light on one of the issues I'm struggling with. One of the things that comes up often in the discussions is the idea of stealthing, but I'm quite confused as to what constitutes this. For instance, I found that one of the ways in which stealthing is enacted is to lie about one's status. In the case of men who are negative and lie about their status being positive in order to get pozzed, can this be considered stealthing? I'm aware that this is only one of the ways 'stealthing' can be defined and I'm in no way trying to box it in a single definition. Rather, I was just hoping to get a clearer idea. Currently, my understanding of stealthing can be one or more of the following: (1) failure to disclose one's status or, (2) lying about one's serostatus; (3) agreeing to use condoms, but disregard this agreement; (4) agreeing to pull out, but disregard this agreement. These can be fantasies or put into practise to fulfil a fantasy. I'm very much interested in the notion of stealthing because one of the things I'm planning to write about are the norms being created around barebacking from the forums. Specifically, I'm focusing on notions of consent, responsibility, choice and ethics with regards to barebacking and these topics always come up when discussing stealthing. Thanks very much!!

Hi everyone, Thanks again to rawTOP for providing me access to do research on the forums in BZ. I just wanted to let you know that I have now concluded my data collection phase and I'm now moving on to the analysis phase of the research. Given that the data collection is over, withdrawal from the research is now over. However, if you still wish to withdraw, please contact me within the next two weeks. After that, there's no more chance to do so. For more information about the project, please follow the link: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/surveys/bareback-study There is plenty of data and I'm still trying to clean it up before making sense of it. I'd like to post some questions here at some point about my 'findings' in order to shed light to some issues and to generate further discussions. Thanks again and if you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers

Thanks cumslut23, I would definitely do that when it's done. I just wanted to post this announcement again as required by the ethics committee for new and existing members to become aware that the research is still on going. Please note that if you don't wish to be part of the research, you can simply send me a message without providing any reason and without any adverse consequences. For your reference, the information about the study is here: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/surveys/bareback-study Thanks!

Hi everyone, I just wanted to post the announcement again, in case new and old members haven't seen it yet (also because of research ethics protocols). I'd like to remind everyone again that if you wish to withdraw from the research, you may do so by sending me a private message or an email. No reason is required and there are no adverse consequences to you as a result Thanks!

As some of you are interested in looking at some research on barebacking, I'm posting some of these (mainly from epidemiological, public health, psycho-social, sociological perspectives). This is not an exhaustive list. The literature presented below do not include research published recently (2012 and 2013). The summaries and commentaries are all mine. I shall post some of the literature on bugchasing/giftgiving next time. Adam, B., W. Husbands, J. Murray, & J. Maxwell. 2005. ‘AIDS Optimism, Condom Fatigue, or Self-Esteem? Explaining Unsafe Sex among Gay and Bisexual Men.’ The Journal of Sex Research 42(3):238-48. The Journal of Sex Research 42(3):238-48. The authors examine major explanations for unsafe sex and contrast it with in-depth interviews with 102 high-risk gay and bisexual men in Toronto to see how well these explanations fit with their accounts. They found that there is an inadequate fit between some of the leading explanations and the discursive accounts provided by high-risk men themselves. Unprotected sex arises in a variety of different circumstances: as a resolution to condoms and erectile difficulties, through momentary lapses and trade-offs, out of personal turmoil and depression, and as a by-product of strategies of disclosure and intuiting safety. Most of these men are well-informed and sophisticated calculators of risk. There is no average gay man nor average factor determining unsafe sex. Adam, B., W. Husbands, J. Murray, & J. Maxwell. 2008. “Circuits, Networks, and HIV Risk Management.” AIDS Education and Prevention 20(5):420-34. Much of the study on barebacking revolves around individualist presumptions and this study sought to move away from the assumption that risk is a tendency that lies within individuals. This study seeks to delineate characteristics of men who report that they like to participate in the ‘bareback scene’ and cruise ‘bareback Websites’ by comparing them with men who had casual male partners during the last 6 months but do not report an interest in bareback scenes or websites. Based on their findings, barebackers show a distinct profile. They are more likely to be: Found in particular set of bars, baths, parks, and websites ‘Sexually adventurous’ that is, involved in poz, fisting, bear, SM, leather, and ‘party and play’ scenes Have a distinctive belief that justifies these practices grounded in a nation of the rational, informed, consenting, responsible masculine actor (i.e., they “show consistency with the neoliberal discourse widely propagated by government and business today that constructs everyone as self-interested […] who must take responsibility for himself in a marketplace of risks” (Adam 2005 in 430). Are more likely to have had five or more partners in the last 6 months compared with non-barebacker men who have casual partners. Bauermeister, J., A. Carballo-Dieguez, A. Ventuneac, C. Dolezal. 2009. “Assessing Motivations to Engage in Intentional Condomless Anal Intercourse in HIV Risk Contextes (‘Bareback Sex’) Among Men who have sex with Men.” AIDS Education and Prevention 21(2):156-68. The authors in this article look at the underlying factors that may motivate behaviours, to help create individual-level behaviour change programs. Findings: Decisional balance to bareback seems to be motivated by two factors: sex as a way of coping with social vulnerabilities and sex as a way to connect and to experience pleasure with other men. Sexual intimacy and pleasure is strongly linked to their desire to cope with social stressors such as racism, loneliness, and homophobia. HIV-positive men were more likely to associate gains with bareback sex as a way of coping with social vulnerabilities than HIV-negative men. Their findings are consistent with Halkitis, et al. (2003) and Carballo-Dieguez & Bauermeister’s (2004) arguments that bareback sex is an intentional act providing sexual and emotional rewards that may not be present when using condoms. Carballo-Dieguez, A., et al. 2010. “‘Bareback’— definitions and identity: Constructs’ limitation for HIV-Prevention research.” Pp. 202-12 in Routledge Handbook of Sexuality, Health and Rights, ed. by P. Aggleton & R. Parker. New York: Routledge. This article explores the meaning of ‘bareback’ from the perspective of men who report engaging in bareback sex. Respondents were in broad agreement that bareback refers to intercourse without condoms; however, there was no single definition embraced by all men. Lack of condom use was often the first and only element mentioned. Intention not to use condoms is also a required element. Bareback as an identity is also inconsistent with the participants: about 1/3 labelled themselves as such, but about ¼ rejected labelling themselves as barebackers because of the stigma attached to the behaviour, particularly for HIV-negative men. Carballo-Dieguez, A., A. Ventuneac, G. Dowsett, I. Balan, J. Bauermeister, R. Remien, C. Dolezal, R. Guguere, M. Mabragana. 2011. “Sexual Pleasure and Intimacy Among men Who Engage in ‘Bareback Sex.’” AIDS Behavior 15:S57-S65. The authors in this article sought to find out what led participants to have their first bareback experience as well as continue with the behaviour. Their qualitative analysis suggests that sexual pleasure and intimacy have a pivotal role and drives for sexual satisfaction, adventure, intimacy, and love overpower health concerns and condom use recommendations. Although they were unable to identify distinct typologies or patterns of factors, the issue of pleasure and intimacy experienced having condomless sex is a potent force men could not or did not want to control. Thus, they suggest that the power of the libido should be acknowledged in prevention approaches. Grov, C., J. Debusk, D. Bimbi, S. Golub, J. Nanin, & J. Parsons. 2007. “Barebacking, the Internet, and Harm Reduction: An Intercept Survey with Gay and Bisexual Men in Los Angeles and New York City.” AIDS Behavior 11:527-36. The authors focus on the internet as a vehicle for MSM to look for intentional unprotected anal intercourse (UAI). They argue that there is a clear link between behaviour and identity because men who identify as barebackers are more willing to engage in a planned and unplanned barebacking. They say that the internet plays an important role in exposing individuals to ‘risky sexual behaviours’ and ‘risky sexual partners’ (533-4). In the end, they suggest that mutual monogamy between partners of the same HIV serostatus is ‘possibly the most effective strategy to eliminate HIV transmission risks’ (534). Halkitis, P. & Parsons, J. 2003. “Recreational Drug Use and HIV-Risk Sexual Behavior Among Men Frequenting Gay Social Venues.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 14(4):19-38. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent of non-injection recreational drug use among gay and bisexual men frequenting gay social venues, assess recent initiation to ‘club drugs’, and document the interaction between drug use and risky sexual practices. They found that, consistent with other studies, there is a high rate of recreational drug use. The most commonly used drugs were alcohol, marijuana, inhalant nitrates, cocaine, and ecstasy. Further, participation in gay social venues (bars, clubs, and bath houses) was found to be significantly related to substance use. In turn, this was associated with risky sexual behaviours, suggesting the interaction between gay social venues, drug use, and unsafe sex. It should be noted that inhalant nitrates and alcohol were the critical predictors of unprotected sex under the influence. Inhalant nitrates use was related to three unprotected sexual behaviours (unprotected oral insertive, unprotected oral receptive, and unprotected anal receptive), suggesting that the use of inhalant nitrates is particularly problematic for HIV prevention (32). They suggest that the relationship between risky sex and inhalant use may result from personality variables, such as a propensity for risk-taking or sensation seeking, and a need to ‘escape’. Further, inhalant nitrates have the pharmacological impact of relaxing the anal muscles, making anal sex less painful. Thus, this drug is related to receptive anal intercourse but not to insertive anal intercourse. There may be an association between HIV status and sexual risk behaviours under the influence of recreational drugs, especially among HIV-positive men. Halkitis, P., Wilton, L., and P. Galatowitsch. 2005. “What’s in a Term? How Gay and Bisexual Men Understand Barebacking.” JGLP 9(3/4):35-48. In this article, the authors examine the conceptual understandings, definitions, and practices of barebacking in a sample of 227 gay and bisexual men in New York metropolitan area. Their findings suggest that gay and bisexual men are familiar with the term ‘barebacking’, but it is inconsistently defined. For the majority of their participants, they defined barebacking simply as anal intercourse without a condom, even if unintended (43). Some men include unprotected oral sex as barebacking and that it was more common among HIV-positive men, particularly with their HIV-positive partners. It is found that HIV-negative men understand barebacking as an act that fellow HIV-ngeative men engage in. Among these men, barebacking is understood as insertive. For HIV-positive men, barebackers include all HIV-positive and HIV-negative men and could either be receptive or insertive. Parsons, J., & Bimbi, D. 2007. “Intentional Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Sex Who have Sex With Men: Barebacking—from Behavior to Identity.” AIDS Behavior 11:277-87. The purpose of their study was to assess the prevalence of gay and bisexual men (both HIV positive and negative) identifying themselves as barebackers and to determine factors related to having a barebacker identity. They found that HIV-positive men were more likely to identify as barebacker than HIV-negative men. Further, they found a link between the use of crystal meth and barebacking identity. Barebackers were also higher in drug and alcohol related sexual experiences. Moreover, barebackers were significantly higher in sexual compulsivity and romantic obsession. They contend that the ‘current social climate of the gay community may be facilitating and sustaining barebacking behaviors and the development of barebacker identity’ (284). For them, the current social climate is where gay men are feeling pressured by peers to bareback and that websites developed to barebacking have proliferated. Pollock, J. & Halkitis, P. 2009. “Environmental Factors in Relation to Unprotected Sexual Behavior Among Gay, Bisexual, and other MSM.” AIDS Education& Prevention 21(4):340-55. This study also moves away from the individual-based analyses of sexual risk and HIV by considering the broader social context in which individuals function. They argue that understanding sexual risk through ‘rational’ cognitively based models tend to forget that sex and sexuality are non-rational and emotional in nature (342). Findings: The venue cited most often for making an initial contact with casual sex partners was the internet; however, this does not suggest that men who use the internet do not use other venues. The best predictor of men engaged in UIAI and URAI with casual partners of all serostatuses (except URAI with negative casual partners) is attending bareback sex parties. Although frequenting bathhouses/sex clubs predict a greater number of casual sex partners, engagement at these venues does not predict unprotected sexual behaviours as bareback sex parties do. However, men who attend bareback sex parties also meet their partners at bathhouses and sex clubs. Reisner, S., M. Mimiaga, P. Case, C. Johnson, S. Safren, & K. Mayer. 2007. “Predictors of Identifying as a Barebacker among High-Risk New England HIV Seronegative Men Who Have Sex with Men.” Journal of Urban Health 86(2):250-62. This article seeks to understand the sociocultural phenomenon of barebacking by measuring the demographics, psychosocial, and behavioural predictors of barebacker ‘identity’ among HIV-negative men. They argue that most studies have focused on behaviour but these do not necessarily provide insights into barebacking as an identity. They found that almost 1/3 of participants identified as barebackers. According to them, men with less education are more likely to identify as barebackers (in particular, men who have completed highschool or below). Further, men who identified as barebackers were more likely to screen for alcohol abuse, having higher levels of HIV treatment optimism, and more likely to have engaged in serodiscordant unprotected insertive anal sex. However, the link between barebacking behaviour and meeting sexual partners online was not seen in this study. They contend that due to the fact that a relatively high number of participants are less-educated, their lack of education contributed to the infrequency of their use of the internet. Shernoff, Michael. 2006. “Condomless Sex: Gay Men, Barebacking, and Harm Reduction.” Social Work 51(2):106-13. This article summarizes current research findings on sexual risk-taking among gay men, discusses psychosocial issues that contribute to barebacking, and suggests a harm-reduction approach to clinical work with gay men who bareback as an effective method of addressing the behaviour. Combination therapy and barebacking: having high-risk sex has been linked to the advent of HAART. It is important for social workers to use psychoeducational interventions ensuring that clients understand the difference between a chronic illness and a mild or unimportant medical condition. Generational differences: According to this author, for many young gay men, a sense of impractical romanticism has developed about how wonderful and liberating sex used to be ‘in the good old days’. However, no evidence is provided to prove this point. Barebacking and the internet: a major factor in contributing to barebacking is the Internet. Drug use and barebacking: ‘party drugs’ have spawned the increase in barebacking. Intrapsychic motivations for barebacking: According to him, gay men grow up in a culture where their desires and even their existence are marginalized. As such, these factors help to strengthen and reinforce internalized homophobia in an individual’s psyche. This helps to explain why some self-actualized, out, and proud gay men are not doing everything possible to prevent themselves and their partners from becoming infected. For some, barebacking is not just an act of sensual pleasure but an assertion of sexual freedom, rebellion, and empowerment (Crossley 2002). [*]Barebacking in pursuit of interpersonal needs: Mansergh, et al. (2002) suggest that men intentionally put themselves and others at risk to meet important human needs such as physical stimulation and emotional connection. [*]Barebacking and AIDS Anxiety: one rationalization for barebacking is the belief that getting HIV might lessen worry about becoming infected. Stein, D., R. Silvera, R. Hagerty, & M. Marmor. 2012. “Viewing Pornography Depicting Unprotected Anal Intercourse: Are There Implications for HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex with Men?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 41:411-19. The authors used an internet-based questionnaire to investigate whether viewing pornography depicting UAI was associated with engaging in UAI in a sample of 821 non-monogamous MSM. They found that viewing pornography depicting UAI and engaging in UAI are correlated. For them, UAI and ‘barebacking’ are synonymous. Inhalant nitrates were also found to be associated with UAI. The findings of this research suggests that reduced viewing of certain types of pornography may facilitate adherence to safer sex guides, based on the ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ where behavioural intentions can be altered by changing attitudes of subjective norms. It seems to me that this correlation is taken too simplistically and/or generally. The relationship between the consumption of pornography depicting barebacking and the translation to behaviour cannot be that simple. Suarez, T. & Miller, J. 2001. “Negotiating Risks in Context: A Perspective on Unprotected Anal Intercourse and Barebacking Among Men Who Have Sex with Men—Where Do We Go From Here?” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30(3):287-300. These authors offer a review of the scientific literature on risk behaviours, popular literature, and websites to delineate the many contextual factors influence the decision to engage in unprotected anal intercourse. Barebacking is recognized as a “highly dangerous” form of unprotected anal intercourse. For them, barebacking refers to “UAI between casual and anonymous partners, but may also encompass oral sex with swallowing of semen, and gloveless fisting” (288). For the purposes of the present review, contextual issues include the cognitive, behavioural, and environmental factors motivating one toward or away from AIDS preventive behaviour. They present a (hypothetical) typology including four groups of gay/bisexual men who engage in UAI who differ on level of negotiated risk and predominate contextual issues. Seroconcordant couples: UAI in this group appears to be motivated by feelings of love and desire to express emotional intimacy. Because these relationships are monogamous, the risk of introducing HIV, hepatitis, or other STDs is infinitesimal. Behaviour in this group is highly unlikely. Rational risk takers: in this group, there is a real possibility of HIV, hepatitis, or other STDs. However, the risks may be reduced because of harm reduction activities: non-monogamous couples with negotiated safety-like agreements, HIV-negative individuals whose only UAI is insertive, and serosorting . These men view UAI as a calculated risk. The underlying contextual issues appear to be the weighing of scientific data on infectivity, reinforcement value of UAI, and possibly AIDS burnout. Irrational risk takers: these include individuals denying their own risk or who use non-scientific or irrational information when making decisions regarding UAI. These men engage in UAI with anonymous partners and also individuals using faulty information such as physical appearance to guess their partner’s HIV status. The logic of this group appears to be convoluted and/or obscured by the heat of the moment, pure pleasure, intimacy issues, and sensation-seeking. Alcohol and drug use also heavily influence risk takers in this group. Young MSM: their lack of experience with the devastation of AIDS and their pessimistic view of the future may lead to risky behaviours. Only societal interventions aimed at reducing homophobia and promoting healthy and dynamic gay role models will help reduce fatalistic thinking in this group. Wolitski, R. 2005. “The Emergence of Barebacking Among Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States: A Public Health Perspective.” JGLP 9 (3/4):9-34. In this article, the author presents a review of the literature to identify reasons why some men engage in unprotected sex. He discusses them as: improvements in HIV treatment, more complex sexual-decision making, the internet, substance use, safe-sex fatigue, and changes in HIV prevention programs. The author argues that barebacking may be considerd as a symptom as a result of HAART, changes in how prevention programs are conducted, and changes in gay communities in general. It may also be a cause for increased risk-taking by providing the tools for a social identity for men who enjoy condomless sex and the environment conducive for its existence such as establishing social networks.

Not at all, actually. I compiled that list for someone who asked specifically for literature on bugchasing and giftgiving. The scope of my research is not at all limited to this literature. I'm actually problematizing the demarcation made in most research that barebacking is distinct because, it is believed, that 'bugchasers' and 'giftgivers' are mainly motivated by transmitting the virus, while 'barebackers' try to avoid HIV infection. Rather, I'm considering these as different manifestations/enactments/realities of barebacking and that we can never really 'know' these differentiations because barebacking itself is complex, multiple and not simply a coherent practice. I'm putting into question these definitions and differentiations and ask what are they (researchers in general) trying to do when they define these concepts? What do these concepts do and for what purpose? In general, most research is driven by the need to know exactly what motivates people to bareback. However, while these may seem to be politically neutral, they are fundamentally problematizing 'gay' sexuality itself. So what I'm trying to pursue is to avoid a simple story of barebacking (that barebacking is caused by this and that); rather, as there are many practices of barebacking, there are also many causes and multiple effects. So that, trying to put an 'end' to it is a fraught endeavour because it really is continually shifting. As with any sexual practice, we can never fully know where it's going to go, because the possibilities are open. I'm interested in bugchasing and giftgiving (as two of the many realities of barebacking) because I think it might be opening many possibilities about sexuality itself. That is, we have a virus (a nonhuman entity) that is at the centre of these practices. Most barebacking research rely on the definition 'intentional unprotected anal intercourse', where intentional pretty much means people are the only agents in these practices. So that, people (mostly gay and other homosexually active men) are responsible for whatever circumstances. However, we also have the virus, as well as condoms (it's non-use does not mean it's not present), PrEP, PEP, lubes, toothbrushes, spit and many other things. That is, things also play an important role in these practices and not only humans. We also have medicine, science, and the law who may be said to be ethically implicated in these practices. Therefore, we cannot simply say that gay men are the only ones responsible for barebacking because there are many other things that are also ethically implicated in the practice. In this way, barebacking will be reconfigured as a network of both human and nonhuman entities and not simply a human behaviour, which is how it is conceptualised in most research. Having said that, my main research questions are: (I) how do barebacking and HIV come into being (the main premises are: that nothing exists prior to the practice itself; that barebacking is complex and multiple; and that HIV is itself complex and multiple) through the practices of gay and other homosexually active men (and also other non-homosexually active men) online? (II) how are biomedical technologies, epidemiological research, safe-sex discourses and the law implicated in the discussions of barebacking? In addition to these: (III) how are subjectivities produced in relation to things, as well as techno-scientific and other knowledge practices? (IV) how are meaning-making practices entangled with things and other techno-scientific and other disciplinary practices? In what ways do meaning-making practices enact barebacking and the virus? (again, the premise is that there are many stories of barebacking, as well as many stories of HIV) AND (V) how do men make sense of sexual ethics in relation to techno-scientific practices? (I take inspiration from both David Halperin and Tim Dean who considered barebacking as 'ethically exemplary'--that these are ways of opening up the self to the other [not only humans but also to nonhuman entities]. Also, that there are discussions about morality--that is, what are morally acceptable and unacceptable--in barebacking, especially in debates about stealthing). I realise that these are extremely complex questions, but I guess complexity is really what I'm trying to get at. Because any research is driven by politics, whether scientists or social scientists acknowledge these or not, I believe that my politics in terms of barebacking is driven by the belief that we can never fully understand what drives our sexual impulses (whatever that may be) because, ultimately, sexuality itself is complex. And, sex itself is not only a human practice, but there are many things involved in it. Thus, if we attend to this complexity, we can never really fully know the effects of these practices. Because of this, we can also say that what are considered 'bad' and 'good' sex is fundamentally open: what is considered 'bad' now will be 'good' tomorrow, and vice versa. I hope these clarify your questions

Most, if not all, research don't really mention the source of their data/participants. It's quite possible that there's been research published whose participants were recruited from breedingzone, but it's impossible to determine this because most, if not all, just say 'from a website' without naming it. There are only two research that mentioned the sources of their data: David Moskowitz and Michael Roloff (2007) from ultimatebareback.com, which no longer exists, and the other is Sharif Mowlabocus (2007) from barebackjack.com (I suppose prior to the update of the website). If anyone is interested in looking at some of these research, just send me a message I've compiled a list (last year, which needs to be updated) that I've sent through an academic listserv when somebody asked for bugchasing/giftgiving reading materials: Dean, Tim. 2009. *Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking*. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Gauthier, DeAnn K., and Craig J. Forsyth. 1999. "bareback sex, bug chasers, and the gift of death." *Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal*20:85-100. Gonzalez, Octavio. 2010. "Tracking the Bugchaser: Giving *The Gift* of HIV/AIDS." *Cultural Critique* 75:82-113. Graydon, Michael. 2007. "Don't bother to wrap it: Online Giftgiver and Bugchaser newsgroups, the social impact of gift exchanges and the 'carnivalesque'." *Culture, Health, and Sexuality* 9:277-292. Grov, Chrstian. 2004. ""make me your death slave": men who have sex with men and use the internet to intentionally spread HIV." *Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal* 24:329-249. Grov, Chrstian , and Jeffrey Parsons. 2006. "Bug Chasing and Gift Giving: The Potential for HIV Transmission among Barebackers on the Internet." *AIDS Education and Prevention* 18:490-503. Halperin, David. 2007. *What Do Gay Men Want?: An Essay on Sex, Risk, and Subjectivity*. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. LeBlanc, Bruce. 2007. "An Exploratory Study of "Bug Chasers"." *Sociological Imagination* 43:13-20. Moskowitz, David, and Michael Roloff. 2007a. "The existence of a bug chasing subculture." *Culture, Health, and Sexuality* 9:347-357. -. 2007b. "The Ultimate High: Sexual Addiction and the Bug Chasing Phenomenon." *Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment*14:21-40. Reynolds, Ellie. 2007. "'Pass the Cream, Hold the Butter': Meanings of HIV Positive Semen for Bugchasers and Giftgivers." *Anthropology & Medicine*14:259-266. Tewksbury, Richard. 2006. ""Click here for HIV": An Analysis of Internet-Based Bug Chasers and Bug Givers " *Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal* 27:379-395. Tomso, Gregory. 2004. "Bug Chasing, Barebacking, and the Risks of Care." *Literature and Medicine* 23:88-111. -. 2008. "Viral Sex and the Politics of Life." *South Atlantic Quarterly*107:265-285. As promised, I'll provide a summary of some of these in a separate forum, which I'll post sometime soon

Hmmm...thanks a lot for this! I guess the attribution to either Stephen Gendin or Scott O'Hara is when the term first appeared in print (Gendin in POZ Magazine and O'Hara in his Autopornography book). Thanks for shedding light on this! But it might be impossible to fully determine when, who and what the context was when the term began circulating. I suspect it's from one of the big (gay) cities in North America, but this is just a mere speculation. Or, it might also be possible that the term came from someone from the country. After all, the term apparently refers to riding the horse without a saddle. Or, maybe another good way to look at is when gay porn started using the term. It's also interesting that you mentioned that 'bugchasing' and 'giftgiving' existed already before 1997. None of the research thus far has also provided a history of these terms. Anyway, If you have any more ideas, please let me know! As for survivor guilt, it was said in Deann Gauthier and Craig Forsyth's research in 1999 that one of the motivating factors for bug chasing is survivor guilt. However, in 2007, Bruce LeBlanc found no support for this. However, it doesn't mean that this is not a motivation for some. To be honest, I'm moving away from the kind of research that tries to determine the factors for why people engage in bareback sex because we can find any reason and try and prove it to be true. Depression, anxiety, drug use, sexual addiction, pornography, etc etc have already been documented and it just keeps on pathologising gay and other homosexually active men. As David Halperin says in his book What Do Gay Men Want?, 'whatever the intention [of psycho-social research about gay men's motives for engaging in risky sex], the result is a portrayal of gay men as beset by a number of serious psychological conditions' (p. 12). And, as a gay man myself, I wish to move away from this and perhaps say that it's impossible to fully determine the causes and effects of sexual risk taking. And, in terms of meth use, I think there's a couple of researchers in New York already doing this area of work

Thanks very much rawTOP for defending the research. I also wish to reiterate that if anyone wishes for any part of their posts not to be included in the research, you have the right to withdraw without any consequences and without giving any reason. Due to the nature of online research, it is quite difficult to really fix a border between what is considered 'private' and 'public', especially when the internet is considered to be in a public domain. There are indeed a lot of online research that just casually take everything out of an online forum or sometimes just 'lurking', without the permission of its owner or without letting any of its members know and still gets published. This kind of research is justified by arguing that such websites are part of the public domain, as such, any part of it will be considered free for all. However, because I wish to conduct research as ethical as possible, and because I think the owner and the community deserves respect, I have chosen to go through the more difficult process of passing through the ethics and also through the gate keepers to ensure a more respectful research for everyone involved. I just want to remind everyone that, as laid out in the Participant Information Sheet and approved by the Faculty of Health Human Ethics Committee, every means to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the website, its owner(s) and members will be executed. However, this guarantee is not absolute as powerful search engines, such as Google, can easily trace the website. If there are any more questions/concerns that I'm not able to answer, please refer to the contact information of my project supervisors, as well as the Ethics Committee as outlined in the Participant Information Sheet. Indeed, I'm just beginning to realise that not everyone on this site is gay or other homosexually active men (or men who have sex with men, as coined in North America). I think that this is one of the aspects that needs to be highlighted in the research and to take this into account. Unfortunately, one of the frustrating things I found when I was writing my research proposal is that there has been no 'historical' account of 'barebacking' except for anecdotal evidence about who coined it (even this is disputed: apparently it was Scott O'Hara who used it first in 1997, but it's also documented that Stephen Gendin wrote about barebacking in the same year). Intentional seroconversion has also been documented in the 1990s by two psychologists (Walt Odets in 1994 and William Johnston in 1995) who argued that 'survivor guilt' was the main reason for why HIV-negative men wanted to intentionally become HIV-positive. This rationale is still 'accepted' by some researchers as motivation for 'bugchasing'. However, I'm arguing that these two practices exist in different contexts and driven by different technologies. I'm ambitiously aiming to somehow 'construct' a history of barebacking, even if it's very short. Yes, I can definitely do this. If others are interested, I could post these on the 'HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Issues'.

Hi guys, thanks very much for responding to this. Btm! I definitely share your concerns. As I am coming from more of a cultural studies perspective, my interest is more on the cultural aspects that are going on in this website, rather than seeking a simplistic explanation of barebacking. My approach is to 'complicate' it in order to blur the lines of what are considered 'good' and 'bad' in sex (barebacking complicates a lot of things we take for granted about sex) and also to challenge a lot of research that's already been done on barebacking: namely, seeking explanations as to why gay and other homosexually active men do it. Having said that, the fantasies that are talked about here will be treated as what it is: just fantasy. But, these fantasies are an important part of culture being generated here. I haven't completely figured out what I'm gonna do with them yet. I obviously still have a lot of learning to do and a lot more time to be spent in the forums. MascMountainMan, yes most definitely! But the results are gonna take a while, so please be patient. Of course, any publications resulting out of this research will be announced/posted on the website. Afterall, you guys are doing me a favour and it's the least I could do as an 'exchange' for your help Anyway, if there are any more questions/concerns please don't hesitate to ask away!

Dear members of Breedingzone forums: My name is Emerich Daroya and I am a PhD candidate at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. My doctoral dissertation explores how gay and other homosexually active men discuss issues surrounding sex-without-condoms in online settings. As a gay man interested in barebacking subcultures, my research aims to move away from the judgemental assumptions about the practice to explore how men describe and understand barebacking in interaction with other men online. I am particularly interested in how men in the forums perceive scientific, legal and moral ideas about condom use and balance these with their preferences for condomless sex. With the kind permission of rawTOP, I am writing to inform you that I am conducting a study of the discussion boards of this website. The research will involve observing and collecting text and visual data from the discussion boards (such as forum threads and advertising images, but not content or images from individual profiles) over a period of three months. I will also ask questions in the discussion boards about members' thoughts about barebacking. While members of the forums may not receive any direct benefit from this research, I believe analysis of the message boards will provide new insights into how gay and other homosexually active men think about and discuss barebacking.I can assure you that I will protect the privacy of the website, its members and moderators by ensuring that all identifying information is kept confidential. Please click on this link to a participant information sheet which provides further information about myself and the study. A pdf copy is also attached with this message. If you have any questions about any aspect of the project, please do not hesitate to send me a message. If you would prefer for any part of your interaction on the website not to be used as data in the project, you may choose to withdraw by contacting me via a private message or email to let me know. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Emerich Daroya edaroya@students.latrobe.edu.au Project Supervisors: Professor Gary Dowsett: g.dowsett@latrobe.edu.au Dr. Duane Duncan: d.duncan@latrobe.edu.au Dr. Steven Angelides: s.angelides@latrobe.edu.au Participant Information Sheet forums.pdf