Added: Caprisha Labat - Date: 30.12.2021 02:29 - Views: 20348 - Clicks: 8479
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. showed overall agreement with a basic definition of bareback sex as condomless anal intercourse, but considerable variation on other elements.
Any identification as barebacker appeared too loose to be of use from a public health prevention perspective. To help focus HIV-prevention efforts, we propose a re-conceptualisation that contextualises risky condomless anal intercourse and distinguishing between behaviours that are intentional and may result in HIV-primary transmission from those that are not. Some commentators have called the barebacking a failure of HIV prevention Goodroad et al. Others have pointed out that bareback behaviour and barebackers should be specifically targeted for renewed HIV-prevention efforts Halkitis et al.
Furthermore, Grov et al. Yet, as a review of the literature reveals, bareback behaviour and identity are inconsistently operationalised terms that run the risk of being reified, creating confusion rather than scientific progress. Our study seeks to shed some light on this dilemma.
It initially referred to intentional condomless anal intercourse, mainly among HIV-infected gay men Gendin However, by the time Silverstein and Picano published a new edition of the iconic The Joy of Gay Sex inbareback was defined simply as condomless gay sex. This attracted the attention of researchers who saw in most cases the need to define the term.
Lacking a standard definition of, and consensus on, the role that intentionality of condomless sex and HIV-transmission risk or lack of it play in bareback sex, some researchers went back to the sources, i. In most cases, brief surveys were administered online or to community samples asking respondents to define bareback sex or presenting scenarios with degrees of intentionality. Using this approach, Halkitis et al.
Similarly, Huebner et al. These reports present data from quick surveys, sometimes no longer than five minutes, in which respondents were not asked to describe their understanding of the term. Furthermore, when brief scenarios were used to elicit information, they did not specify the HIV status of protagonists. As a result, proportions of respondents endorsing different definitions vary widely. Many authors acknowledge problems in defining bareback. Yet, that acknowledgement has not led to any resolution, with authors choosing differing terms for different reasons.
This definitional imprecision le to difficulty in comparing findings andin developing evidence-based prevention responses. Researchers have also tackled No no registration sex chat been there done that related topic: bareback identity. Yep et al. For Wolitskip. Shidlo et al. Halkitis et al. Based on the idea of a distinct bareback identity, studies have compared individuals who identify as barebackers with those who do not. Thus, Halkitis et al. S33 found the former more likely to report alcohol and other drug use and sexual risk behaviour, and ethnic minority men less likely than white men to be both familiar with the term and identify as barebackers.
The analysis failed to show associations between this scale and of bareback partners or sexual behaviours. However, as we will see below, our respondents did not register this resistance. Therefore, while barebacker can be understood as a new sexual identity, how barebacker is operationalised as an identity in practise is no clearer from the literature. Given this lack of consensus, we deed the Frontiers in No no registration sex chat been there done that study to explore, among other topics, from the perspective of men who report engaging in bareback sex, the meaning of bareback sex, which words besides bareback are used to name the practise, and whether respondents identify as barebackers.
Furthermore, we sought to redefine the term within a conceptual model that might help orient future work in this area. We also stratified the sample to include about two thirds who reported both being HIV-negative and having had unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the year. Individuals who qualified were scheduled for interviews in our research offices as soon as possible after the screening.
Then, each respondent underwent an audio-recorded, in-depth, face-to-face interview conducted by one of three clinical psychologists on our team. A guide provided the structure for the in-depth interview. A commercial service transcribed the interviews. We verified the accuracy of transcripts by comparing them with the recording. We next created a preliminary codebook consisting of major themes, with the topic of each section from the interview guide as a first-level code e.
The codebook included definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and examples. We coded four transcripts independently and compared them to identify concurrence or lack of it in using the codebook. We modified the codebook where necessary and conducted independent coding using NVivo, a software programme for qualitative data analysis. Finally, the first author identified modal responses, omitting recurrent or repetitious text.
Quotes from respondents presented here are accompanied by study identityethnicity, HIV serostatus and age to give the reader a sense of the diversity of respondents. The limited quantitative data used in this report was processed using SPSS.
Respondents had, on average, two years of college education. Most of the respondents self-identified as gay. The men had had, on average, between 13 and 14 sexual partners in the two months and they practised unprotected anal intercourse frequently.
I: If I were to ask you for a dictionary definition of bareback sex, what would you say? This lack of condom use was often the first and the only element mentioned. Some defined it without reference to any type of sex and encompassing both heterosexual and homosexual acts. R: In the sexual context, this means, um, just not using a condom, and having intercourse, whether anal, vaginal or, or oral.
Not using a condom. At other times, definitions were restricted to anal intercourse without condoms and to sex among men only, for which some respondents considered that intrarectal ejaculation should also be included in the definition:. R:…[sighs] dictionary definition of bareback sex. A few individuals spontaneously included intention not to use condoms as a requiredelement of the definition.
R: I would say, the deliberate-less, the deliberate condom-less act of sexual intercourse, especially anal, um, what would you say? With the intent of enhanced pleasure. However, most respondents did not mention intention. Therefore, the intentionality was brought into the definition by the failure to stop having intercourse at the point of becoming aware that the condom broke.
This nuance was not, however, without its reservations:. But barebacking is usually a conscious choice. But I understand that is kind of complicating the situation. R: Um. Other respondents stated that condomless sex between an uninfected monogamous couple should not be considered bareback sex.
They love each other. They know their status. In other words, were it not for HIV and AIDS, condomless sex would not only be the norm among gay men, it would not even be considered an issue. We also asked what other words respondents knew that referred to bareback sex. One Latino respondent even used crudothe literal translation of raw in Spanish.
I mean, you see guys using euphemisms, but they usually refer to transmission of HIV. So they really go beyond that definition. This is an important distinction. These terms did not arise spontaneously in the interviews and, when probed, many respondents did not know about them and simply inferred what they might mean. R: Bug chasers! Ah, yes. Those poor, deluded people who romanticize getting HIV. When we asked respondents if they considered themselves barebackers, most replies focused on condomless sexual practices, and based on that men responded either affirmatively or negatively, or qualified how the term would apply to them.
A few respondents queried whether having condomless sex sufficed to define someone as being one thing or another. About a third of the respondents labelled themselves as barebackers—and more often it was HIV-positive than HIV-negative men. The truth…is the light. R: I would want somebody to know? 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.No no registration sex chat been there done that
email: [email protected] - phone:(565) 943-2093 x 9358
Is ‘bareback’ a useful construct in primary HIV-prevention? Definitions, identity, and research