Robersone5_ENG6318_FinalEssayOnLanguageUse

Eric J. Roberson
ENG 6318 – StylisticsandEditing
Dr. Moosally – UHD Spring2010 Semester
13 May 2011
A New Vocabulary Among American Gay Men
By Eric J. Roberson
Prepared for Dr. Michelle Moosally
ENG 6318 – Stylistics and Editing
Spring 2011 Semester

A New Vocabulary Among American Gay Men Page 1 of 25
By Eric J. Roberson
A New Vocabulary Among American Gay Men
By Eric J. Roberson
Gay men in the United States have developed a new vocabulary in their online quests to find
sexual partners who will intentionally participate in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) – in a process
known as serosorting. The goal of this essay is to expose how the Internet and the HIV epidemic have led
to the development of a new language among gay men. To cite an example of this new language, gay
men sometimes consciously and explicitly eschew condoms during anal intercourse – colloquially known
as “barebacking” (Gastaldo, et. al. 172). The word “bareback” is one word which has entered the gay
vernacular from mainstream language within the last three decades,but the word bareback has a radically
different meaning in the way gay men and the mainstream use the word. Gay men have also coined other
new terms such as the word “poz” to indicate an HIV+ serostatus. Another term, or in this case an
acronym that has been created,is “DDF” to indicate a preference for a sexual partner who is “drug and
disease free.” An open mind will help you better appreciate the topics discussed in this essay about
language use.
Defining severalkey goals is central to understanding the controversy for performing this original
research. Foremost,the frequency with which these new words are used will be a major outcome of this
research. Second,determining the frequency will help gauge acceptable use and how broadly these words
are used among a homogenous group of gay men. Third, gaining a better understanding of this new
vernacular can help the mainstream dominant culture correspond with a target audience of gay men.
Finally, it will demonstrate how quickly new words enter the vernacular in cultures of like-minded
people. All but one of the terms studied in this essay would have likely come into use by gay men within
the last three decades since the beginning of the HIV epidemic in the 1980’s.
Let us consider some other terms that will appear in this essay and lay a foundation for the
research. Simply put, barebacking is unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) between two men (Gastaldo, et.
al. 172). All men who have sex with men (MSM) will be considered in statistical demographics,

By Eric J. Roberson
regardless of whether they identify themselves as purely homosexual. Personalaccounts used herein may
refer to barebacking as “raw” or “uninhibited” sex, which are two other words closely associated with gay
men’s desires to have unprotected sex. Relating to HIV disease, the terms seropositive means someone
who has the HIV virus, and serodiscordant is indicative of a couple of mixed serostatus, consisting of one
person who is negative and one who is positive. An undetectable viral load means the inability to detect
HIV virus in blood plasma, and undetectable viral loads are the modern gold standard for successfulHIV
treatment. These terms will be used throughout this essay,particularly while exploring the concept of
serosorting, which is the process of choosing a partner of the same serostatus. Most likely, the process of
serosorting has given rise to this new vocabulary used among gay men, particularly when communicating
online, and this research will show that serosorting is a primary motivating factor for development of a
new vocabulary in this demographic.
As shocking and controversial as “bareback” sex among gay men may seem to most people, it is a
prevalent practice which has been around since before the nexus of the AIDS epidemic in America, and it
is an activity becoming more and more actuated through Internet communication. While UAI is not new,
some of the words used by gay men are new – particularly when in pursuit of UAI online. No community
is better than gay men at mobilizing a response to crises of an “implacable biological peril” (Adam 334)
as evidenced by the strides gay men made toward comprehensive and compassionate health care for HIV
positive people during the 1980s. It is easy to lend compassion to any community that has been ravaged
by an epidemic as gruesome as AIDS. Taking into account gay men’s experiences at the onslaught of the
AIDS epidemic, the decision to participate in bareback sex is complicated and requires thoughtful insight
into the ideologies that encompass the thought process. The goal of this essay is not to disprove the
recklessness of having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive, but rather to demonstrate the
common language that has developed among gay men in the last three decades to indicate their serostatus
and their desires to have UAI sexual encounters.
Both HIV- and HIV+ gay men must make difficult decisions in finding fulfilling sexual
relationships, and often knowing a potential partner’s serostatus upfront is an important means to that end.

By Eric J. Roberson
How they do so is often based in the language they use. Hopefully, the outcome of this research will
show how often the gay community uses terms such as “bareback,” “DDF,” “raw,” and “poz” in their
quest to find sexual partners. Having compassion will help you appreciate the personal accounts of
positive men that appear later in this essay and the motivation for conducting this research about language
use.
Before the advent of HIV in the 1970s, sexually transmitted infection (STI) outbreaks like
syphilis and hepatitis B occurred among gay men in major metropolitan areas,which indicates that men
often had unprotected sex before the HIV epidemic began (Bimbi and Pearsons 277). As a result of these
STI outbreaks, empirical investigations led to studies about sexual behavior and sexual expectations
among gay men and how they utilized “sexually charged venues” such as bars and bathhouses for sexual
encounters (Bimbi and Pearsons 277). Since then, a new era has been ushered in with the Internet
becoming the first step in gay men’s quests for finding potential sex partners.
Barebacking is becoming an increasingly common practice (Bimbi and Pearsons 277), and
research reveals that there has always been a group of high-risk takers throughout the HIV epidemic
(Bimbi and Pearsons 277). Most literature and media coverage attributes new HIV infections to men
“slipping up” in the heat of the moment (Plant and Sheon 1), but “slipping up” is not always the case.
This “understanding of unsafe sexual practices is superficial because it does not recognize several
determining sociocultural and psychological factors” (Gastaldo, et. al. 172). Barebacking is
distinguishable from the “unplanned, episodic, unprotected sexual encounters” (Adam 334) that some
men have, and the practice is frequently attributed to a variety of circumstances such as the following:
 “a resolution to erectile difficulties experienced with condoms” (Adam 334)
 a “momentary lapse” or “ trade-offs” (Adam 334)
 a result of “personal turmoil and depression” (Adam 334)
 “a byproduct of strategies of disclosure and intuiting safety” (Adam 334)

By Eric J. Roberson
While on one hand knowingly HIV positive people are construed as the risk and the problem, the truth is
that the “vast majority of HIV transmission occurs from people who have no knowledge they are HIV
positive or are ignorant of how it is transmitted” (Adam 336). Obviously, if someone uses the word poz
while communicating online, they are aware of their seropositive status. You may have met HIV
negative men who foolishly believe they are immune from contracting HIV from a positive receptive
“bottom” partner, or you may know HIV positive men who use their undetectable viral loads as a free
pass for leaving condoms on the night stand. More importantly, when men use the acronym DDF to
indicate they are drug and disease free,they may not have had a recent HIV test to support their claims.
Accountability is important when using terms like DDF or poz in the process of serosorting, which cannot
occur the absence of regular HIV testing.
In a 2002 study, 22% of HIV positive men and 10% of negative men reported intentional
participation in UAI. One year later,a similar study reported 61% and 42% of men, respectively, had
bareback sex—intentional or otherwise (Bimbi and Parsons 278). Research also shows increased
transmission of HIV between gay men over the past several years. Between 2001 and 2005, new HIV
diagnoses increased 11% among men who have sex with men (MSM) overall in the United States, and
between 2001 and 2006 new cases increased 23% in MSM aged 13-29 (Halkitis and Pollock 340). These
statistics are indisputable proof that barebacking is a worrisome issue for the gay community since new
HIV cases are rising rapidly. The data also proves that unprotected sex is still a prevalent practice among
MSM and it substantiates that barebacking is increasing drastically among men under age 30 (Halkitis
and Pollock 341). It is impossible to deny that living with the complications of HIV disease is
disadvantageous for a gay man; debating that fact is not the goal of this essay. The mission is to expose
the vocabulary gay men in use when contemplating sexual encounters and communicating online, to
validate whether the use of these terms is acceptable in writing for a lay audience of gay men, and
whether language use has led to success or failure in protecting MSM from transmitting HIV to their
sexual partners. These statistics show that disclosure of one’s serostatus with terms such as poz or DDF
has not led to a decrease in the transmission of HIV.

By Eric J. Roberson
Statistics also provide incontrovertible evidence that unprotected sex among older, white, and
relatively affluent gay men in major metropolitan cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and
Washington, D.C., is increasing, despite the fact that older gay white men have been the traditional target
group for HIV prevention messages (Cox 1). If you are a gay man over 40, you have likely been
bombarded with safe sex campaigns most of your adult life. The “recent surge in HIV infections. . .
indicate that bareback sex is practiced by individuals from every sociodemographic stratum and
serostatus” (Gastaldo, et. al. 172). Considering the data, we must accept that bareback sex is a serious
issue facing the gay community that requires better understanding since unprotected sex is medically
agreed upon as the primary mode for HIV transmission among couples both gay and straight. More
importantly, this study will attempt to determine whether this shared vocabulary is unique to one segment
of the gay population, or if gay men of all ages, ethnicities, and in all regions of the country are invested
in using this new vocabulary.
Introducing the Internet
The context in which men meet casualsex partners plays a role in both the number of partners
they have and whether or not they engage in barebacking (Halkitis and Pollock 340). Men who meet other
men online for sex have higher rates of unprotected sex and STIs (Vogel 2). But the Internet has also
increased conversations among gay men about barebacking which reflects an improved climate for
discussing the controversial topic (Plant and Scheon 2). According to a 2009 study appearing in the
scholarly journal AIDS Education and Prevention,men who bareback practice serosorting when “using
the Internet to meet casualsex partners. Being HIV positive was found to be a better predictor of this
behavior [serosorting]” (Halkitis and Pollock 351). Thus, using the terms DDF and poz to describe one’s
serostatus is indicative of the desire to serosort, or to choose a partner of the same serostatus.
According to Deb Levin, the Executive Director of Internet Sexuality Information Services, the
Internet is a communication medium that allows men to connect with potential partners faster and easier
compared to other places such as nightclubs and bath houses. Levin says “It is a lot harder when you are
working face-to-face because you have to sort of summon up the effort to talk to somebody and to break

By Eric J. Roberson
the ice and to ask them to come home with you; whereas [sic] the Internet, everybody is there for the
same reason; it is very quick, it is very easy” (Vogel 2). Consequently, the Internet is different from other
venues where men meet for sex because it makes engaging in the practice of barebacking easier.
“Internet sites facilitate sexual experimentation and the expansion of bareback networks. [These] virtual
environments often constitute entry points to physical places where sex may occur” (Balan, et. al. 475).
Levin offers five reasons why the Internet has become a popular way to meet potential sex
partners. The Internet is accessible, affordable, anonymous, acceptable,and approximate (Vogel 3).
Accessibility refers to ease of use – gay men are frequently Internet savvy and Internet connectivity is
available almost anywhere via wireless hotspots such as those found in bars and restaurants. The Internet
is affordable in cost; no payment is needed to use Internet bareback sites (Balan et. al. 486). Perhaps most
importantly, the Internet affords a sense of anonymity, and it has become quite acceptable among MSM to
meet men online for sex. Recent data observes more than 80% of MSM are meeting for sex online
(Vogel 3). As Levin further describes, approximation allows men in both dense metropolitan areas and
rural areas to meet quickly and easily (Vogel 3).
The Internet debate studied by two prominent researchers Carballo-Diéguez and Bauremeister
found that “Barebackers also defend their right to self-determination, espousing the philosophy that each
person is responsible for his own doings” thereby tying neoliberal ideologies to the Internet. Like the
commodities markets, the Internet has allowed new value systems to evolve and new relational forms to
be explored and developed for men who participate in barebacking (Balan, et. al. 486). Yet, the new era
ushered in by the Internet poses severalnew challenges for HIV prevention efforts. Internet sites reaffirm
a “call to community” that supports the discourse of barebacking and normalizes the behavior as a
subcultural norm (Balan, et. al. 485). “Bareback internet sites bypass the discussion on risk” emphasizing
instead “choice and individual responsibility” (Balan, et. al. 486) as an “environment traditionally
isolated” from safe-sex prevention messages such as posters and free condoms (Vogel 2). The Internet
is also an easy way to access x-rated videos, particularly bareback porn, which could influence decision
making (Scott Daddy 1). Idolization of bareback porn stars can cause men to turn taboos seen on film

By Eric J. Roberson
into expressions in reallife of their wildest fantasies, just as people can be persuaded by the latest
hairstyles or fashion trends of Hollywood celebrities.
Nonetheless, the Internet can be helpful. Bareback Internet sites help men choose partners of the
same HIV status through the process of serosorting (Balan, et. al. 486). Some gay men claim that the
larger community of men needs to have more non-judgmental discussions about serosorting as a solution
to HIV transmission (Scott Daddy 3). This community has a language, and this research will explore
some of the words used by the community when communicating online. The results of a 2005 study
corroborate the notion that the Internet can be used to relay important facts where men interested in
barebacking can find information quickly about the practice; so, finding sites where like-minded men
meet (Balan, et. al. 484) could be the linchpin for a broader discussion on HIV prevention methods since
the Internet makes finding sex partners easier. Conversely, any “interventions from outside the gay
community may be perceived as thinly veiled attacks on an already marginalized” group of people
(Gastaldo, et. al. 173). Thus, for the mainstream public who is often isolated from the gay community,
understanding what each these terms mean is important in communicating with gay men. Fostering a
community of support can also meliorate grief and depression as a result of HIV prevention fatigue.
Using a common language can show support. Although the Internet is a virtual communication medium,
it is an ideal place for communication and compassion to become part of the solution to rising HIV
infection rates. Before inviting others into the conversation, it is equally important to understand how the
language is used as it is to understand the psychological mindset of gay men who bareback.
Methodology
Gay men have found many venues for meeting online, including internet dating sites, sites
exclusively aimed at men interested in “barebacking,” and even the free public ad space found on Craig’s
List (http://craigslist.org.) Craig’s List will be the method used to gather data for severalreasons. First,
people can freely post ads on Craig’s List so the information is considered open and available to the
public. Therefore,IRB approval was not necessary for the study of personal ads freely posted online.
Second, Craig’s List organizes posts by date, helping narrow the research to a specific date range

By Eric J. Roberson
(D=4/26/2011 to 4/27/2011). Third, Craig’s List will automatically search both titles and ad body texts,
making it an easy method for a large content analysis of personal ads. Fourth and finally, it is easy to
include only a certain number of ads from each city using Craig’s List because the website will show the
total number of ads posted per day, aggregating one hundred (n=100) ads per page. For this study, the
total number of ads posted each city, appearing on April 26 and 27, 2011, were used in the analysis. The
number of personal ads searched was 8037. Since the Internet is a likely place for MSM to meet for sex,
Craig’s List is an ideal place to study the language used among gay men who serosort since the ads can be
easily searched for keywords.
Relying on personal experience, I narrowed the search list to four terms for this study:
“bareback,” “DDF,” “poz,” and “raw.” To include a broad audience of men from across the United
States,the study included ad samples from the four largest U.S. cities including New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago, and Houston. This ensures a broad demographic of gay men living in major metropolitan areas,
but falls short of including men from other large cities or from rural parts of the country. As such, this
study is only able to determine whether these terms are used throughout major regions of the country (i.e.
north, south, east, and west.)
The following steps were performed in order, and can be reproduced by future researchers:
1. Launch an internet browser, then browse to each of the following sites:
a. http://newyork.craigslist.org/m4m
b. http://losangeles.craigslist.org/m4m
c. http://chicago.craigslist.org/m4m
d. http://houston.craigslist.org/m4m
2. Navigate to the date of ads to search by keyword. Note that date ranges are indicated
by a bold heading separating ads from different dates. Determine the total number of
ads posted in each city for the date range.

By Eric J. Roberson
3. Using the search blank at the top, enter each the following terms one at a time:
a. Bareback
b. DDF
c. Poz
d. Raw
4. Count the number of hits that each word gets in the date range, then record the
information in a chart.
5. Extrapolate the frequency with which the ads appear in the total number of ads from
each city (number of keyword hits per city / total number of ads from each city.)
6. Draw conclusions based on the results.
Results
If an ad included the term DDF, then it likely would not have included the word poz. The words
raw and bareback are synonyms used by gay men interested in a UAI. The following chart shows the
number of ads from each region that uses one of the terms.
Bareback DDF Poz Raw Total Containing One
of the Terms
New York (East) 16 265 11 20 312
Chicago (North) 11 303 4 3 321
Houston (South) 1 190 4 7 202
Los Angeles (West) 19 143 8 17 187
Figure 1: This figure shows the number of ads for each region that contained one of the
keywords. The total number of ads search was 8037.
The following graphs depict the percentage of ads that use the terms, showing a fairly even distribution
throughout the United States. Conclusively, the terms are generally accepted across a broad region of gay
men in the United States.

By Eric J. Roberson
3060
312
New York (East)
Total Number of Ads
Total Containing one
Keyword
10.20%
1784
321
Chicago (North)
Total Number of Ads
Keyword
17.99%

By Eric J. Roberson
Discussion
This study included only four major cities in the United States from one website, and as such
excludes populations of MSM who live in other major cities or in rural areas and men who may
exclusively use other sites geared toward barebacking such as Bareback Real-Time Sex (http://bbrts.com)
or Men 4 Sex Now (http://men4sexnow.com). Future research should consider including other major
cities and possibly rural regions for study. Craig’s List is only one website where personal ads are listed
by MSM for bareback sex. Many other sites exist, and future studies should consider including other
698
202
Houston (South)
Total Number of Ads
Keyword
28.94%
2495
187
Los Angeles (West)
Total Number of Ads
Keyword
7.49%

By Eric J. Roberson
websites where men actively seek UAI sexualencounters. Unfortunately, this study could not account for
ads posted by visitors from other cities due to the nature of Craig’s List and the study could not account
for sexual orientation or identity (eg. Gay, straight, or bisexual); however, other bareback websites allow
people to list their cities of origin or hometowns, their planned travel cities, and they even offer options to
specify sexual orientation. A more extensive study could account for these variables by searching other
barebacking websites.
Also, this study is limited to only four terms. Perhaps future research can take into account other
terms common among barebackers such as “BB,” “bare,” “clean,” “filled,” “neg,” “swap,” or “seed.”
Extending the search to more terms will help build a better understanding of the communication that takes
place among MSM who seek casualpartners online. In addition, Craig’s List allows people who post
personal ads to disclose their age. Provided people are honest about their ages, future research can
account for the ages of men in an effort to demonstrate a broad age distribution of men who use the terms
in their ads.
To account for the newness of these terms, future research can prove when they came into
existence by finding personal advertisements appearing in print before the HIV epidemic began in the
early 1980’s. There are severalmagazines, with both national and local distributions, that were popular
among gay men ad contained print ads. Some of the magazines that might be studied include The
Advocate,Mr. Drummer, and This Week In Texas (TWIT). Finding back issues of these publications could
be a daunting task, in addition to the time required to do a thorough content analysis of printed text.
Online auction sites such as Ebay may be a great source to locate back issues of these magazines, but
there could also be a considerable cost associated with procuring these printed materials.
The evidence shows that a significant number of personal ads included at least one of the search
terms. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results:
 Approximately 16% of ads contained at least one of the search terms.

By Eric J. Roberson
 MSM actively use a common language in seeking partners of the same serostatus.
 The use of these terms were greater in the north and south than in the east and
west.
 A preference exists for the use of DDF in ads, showing a greater distribution of
HIV- men, but this does not necessarily mean men who purport to be DDF are
seeking bareback encounters or that they have been recently tested for HIV.
 The percentage of ads that contain one of the search terms could increase or
decrease if the length of the study included several consecutive days (this study
controlled for two days during April 2011.)
 Men who use the word poz in their ads have been tested and conclusively know
their HIV test results.
Considering the fact that HIV infections still occur and are actually rising, men who are unaware of their
serostatus are more likely to transmit the virus. Getting tested and knowing one’s serostatus is an
important first step before espousing to others that you are DDF. Likewise, stating you are poz upfront is
an important step in finding a partner of the same serostatus. A significant number of men who are
seropositive are already doing so, and the onus is on seronegative men to be regularly tested for HIV
before professing to be seronegative.
Defining neoliberalism is essential to understanding the bareback phenomenon and how men who
bareback try to justify their behavior as rational. In an essay “Neoliberalism: origins, theory, definition,”
Paul Treanor defines neoliberalism as follows:
“Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a market are valued in
themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods and services,
and without any attempt to justify them in terms of their effect on the production of goods and
services; and where the operation of a market. . . is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as

By Eric J. Roberson
a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs. . . A
general characteristic of neoliberalism is the desire to intensify and expand the market, by
increasing the number, frequency, repeatability, and formalization of transactions.”
Like Neoliberalism, the Internet has created a social network to increase the frequency and repeatability
of bareback encounters,and this study shows how a common language has been developed to further the
practice of barebacking.
Perceptions related to risk-reduction strategies are often poorly understood by the broader
community, likely because mainstream society and quite possibly many gay men themselves have never
heard of these terms. “Healthy sexual behavior intentions and actions can be compromised by powerful
emotions, unforeseen barriers to initial intentions, and temptations,” therefore it is difficult to tell what
people will do when sex and emotions are involved (Halkitis and Pollock 341). Risk-reduction strategies
raise the question of whether monogamous gay couples in search of greater relationship fulfillment should
be coerced to always use condoms by safe sex campaigns. After all, two important concepts of
neoliberal ideology tied to barebacking are freedom of choice and informed consent. Integrating
neoliberalism theory with the decision making process of barebackers reveals the concept of freedom of
choice and lends merit to disclosing your HIV status before having casualsex. Arguably, safe sex
campaigns are misleading and demoralizing if condoms are seen as the only viable option for two men,
thereby eliminating gay men’s freedom of choice. Informed consent cannot occur without proper
disclosure, and using terms such as poz and DDF is one mechanism to inform prospective sexual partners
of your serostatus before having sex.
Negotiating Risk
HIV was once seen as a death sentence but has now become a manageable disease for most
people. The fact that “scientists have not proven that unprotected sex between HIV positive men is
unsafe” contributes to the dilemma for HIV positive couples deciding to abandon condoms (Plant and
Scheon 4). Further complicating matters are advancements in HIV treatment. While on one hand new
therapies are giving men “a reason or simply an excuse” to abandon condom use,on the other hand many

By Eric J. Roberson
falsely believe that undetectable levels of HIV virus in their blood is the equivalent to being HIV
negative; therefore, they believe the risk of exposing sex partners to HIV is minimized (Plant and Scheon
2). The truth is that every casual encounter increases the risk for an array of STIs including HIV,and gay
men must be empowered by the dominant culture to consider the risks of contracting other infections
before having casualsex. The dominant culture and mainstream public cannot empower serosorting
efforts as a means to prevent the spread of HIV among gay men without knowing the common language
spoken among MSM who intentionally participate in UAI.
Based on research and personal accounts from interviews, gay men have indicated that “bareback
sex produces greater stimulation, heightens emotional closeness with a partner, and is a means of
rebelling against established norms” (Gastaldo, et. al. 173). Barebackers believe they are celebrating
intimacy and closeness to their sexual partners while the practice of unprotected sex is often condemned
by people, including other gay men, who do not fully understand barebackers’ motivations. These
attitudes alone reaffirm that condoms “as the only viable option for two men” is an overly simplified
solution to a complex problem of how two men can safely and appropriately express sexual intimacy.
For people who disagree with the practice of barebacking, consider showing compassion toward gay men
who bareback based on the underlying motivations and reasons for giving up condoms. Learn to speak
their language.
On the most basic level, people have to talk about their HIV status in order to prevent
transmission. Communication is a simple solution that can help minimize HIV transmission. According
to a study that appeared in the scholarly journal AIDS Education and Prevention,“HIV positive men are
choosing to seek out other HIV positive casual partners and may be actively avoiding negative partners.
HIV positive study participants engaged in bareback sex with more HIV positive [men] and HIV status
unknown partners than HIV negative study participants” (Halkitis and Pollock 351). To reiterate, this
practice is known as serosorting, or selecting a partner of the same HIV status to have sex with. Using the
terms poz and DDF in online personal ads supports this notion as evidenced in this study.

By Eric J. Roberson
Every bareback encounter does not expose gay men to HIV. This fact demonstrates a valid
connection to the neoliberal ideologies of informed consent without any other attempt to justify the
relationship. For example, two negative men who bareback cannot spontaneously generate a strain of
HIV (Scott Daddy 2). “Negotiations can take place, risks ascertained, and personal responsibility can be
assumed” before someone decides to have a bareback sexual encounter (Scott Daddy 3). This calls us to
remind ourselves that “HIV is a health issue, not a punishment for being gay or cosmic retribution for
making bad decisions” (Scott Daddy 3). As in neoliberalism, responsibility and informed consent are key
components of bareback identity in which men must “navigate, negotiate, choose, and realize moral
obligation” (Adam 335). Using a shared language helps in the endeavor of negotiating risk with UAI.
More empirical evidence emphasizes that positive men do not set out to intentionally infect HIV
negative partners in that they know “coping with HIV disease is onerous, and hardly anything to be
wished on someone else” (Adam 341). “Some positive men feel quite strongly about” protecting HIV
negative partners from the virus by insisting on condom use or avoiding an encounter with an HIV
negative person altogether (Adam 337). Barry Adam, a prominent investigator in HIV risk-reduction
strategies, has conducted research that reveals common responses such as:
I mostly only have sex with poz guys now. . . I don’t want to have sex with somebody and infect
them especially if they don’t know… I’m not going to go convert some little 19 year-old boy who
doesn’t know his ass from his elbow because I would feel totally responsible and I can’t do that.
So I mean, I’ve actually given lectures to some of these guys on the internet saying, “Listen guy,
you got, you better do some thinking before you do this.” (Age 50s, HIV positive.)
People who are compassionate must admit that having sex without condoms is fair for two men if the risk
of exposure to HIV does not exist, being mindful that problems arise when communication breaks down
and disclosure does not occur. If individual responsibility is not discussed, or two partners mistakenly
assume they are of the same serostatus,then risk is not mitigated. Do you ask every sexual partner their
HIV status before having sex? Adam’s interviews with HIV positive men underpin the failings of the
rhetoric of personal responsibility through disclosure so often celebrated by neoliberalism:

By Eric J. Roberson
There was a fellow I called one time—this was less than a year ago—and he was fairly young.
He was only 25 or so and we… went home… After having had intercourse and I was washing up,
I said “So how long have you been positive?” And he said, “I’m not positive.” And I said,
“What!?” Because I sometimes understand where tops think—there’s this stupid idea that tops
don’t get the disease, that somehow they’re immune… There is that foolish idea… So anyway,
we ended up dashing off to St. Mike’s [hospital emergency] and doing, you know, the emergency
cocktail thing and all those other sort of stuff. (Age 30’s, HIV positive.)
The alarm about potentially infecting a negative sex partner is noteworthy, but the responsibility of going
to real lengths to help find post-exposure prophylactic (PEP) treatment for HIV exposure is more
important, lending evidence that emotions like care and compassion exist in bareback culture. One must
not disregard the expression of genuine concern expressed between the two men. Since communication is
part of the solution, everyone reading this essay can agree that it would have been easier if the HIV
positive person confronted with the above situation would have asked his partner’s serostatus before
consenting to unprotected sex. He could have easily asked “Are you poz?”
From a hegemonic gender construct, gay men are more willing participants in risky behaviors
such as barebacking because risk taking is considered an appropriate expression of masculinity by the
dominant [straight] culture (Gastaldo, et.al 174). Conceptualizing risky behavior in this way arose from
social cognitive theory where “the individual is the principal agent in behavior prediction and change and
such paradigms are often applied in empirical studies of MSM sexual risk” (Halkitis and Pollock 341).
For example, a popular gay columnist by the pen name Scott Daddy acknowledges that “being renegades
and ‘bad boys’ just adds to the thrill of it all. The more taboo barebacking is, the more intriguing and
exciting it becomes. . . [bareback sex] is hot and it feels fucking great. Any top who tells you that
fucking with a condom feels as good as fucking raw is either a liar or hasn’t tried both. . . I prefer it raw”
(Scott Daddy 1). If you believe in freedom of choice, then you must agree that it is unreasonable to take
away the right to unprotected sex for couples when both partners are HIV positive or both partners are
HIV negative since they will not expose anyone else to HIV during sex.

By Eric J. Roberson
Conclusion
This essay describes how bareback sex is an emotionally charged and controversial issue that
requires more understanding than simply insisting gay men wear condoms every time they have sex. Just
like people who smoke or obese people who indulge in fatty foods, MSM have found ways to rationalize
the very behaviors that put their health at risk, and men who bareback have come up with a unique
language to support their rationalization. Efforts to prevent certain ostensible behaviors implant “the very
desires they are aimed to eradicate” (Plant and Scheon 3). “Breaking the rules gives meaning to our
actions and this quest for meaning has only intensified as a result of the AIDS epidemic” (Plant and
Scheon 3). Although barebacking may seem idiotic and reckless to some people, it is a normal
expression of identity for many gay men complete with a shared vocabulary, and the Internet has made
finding bareback partners almost effortless. This certainly shows that men often express their identity of
being positive or negative through the use of words like poz or DDF. Similarly, the words bareback and
raw are both indicative of a person who will willingly participate in UAI. Some gay men abandon
condoms in an attempt to overcome the constraints of their former oppressive relationships with the AIDS
epidemic, which can be construed as a grasp for freedom. Correlating bareback sex to modern neoliberal
ideologies gives rise to new interpretations of bareback identity, culture, and a new language, all of which
are enlightening for compassionate people who want to understand the dilemma of bareback sex.
The Internet has given men a safe place to discuss and potentially act on their desire for bareback
sex (Plant and Scheon 3). “Internet access has facilitated casual and anonymous sexual encounters by
increasing initial contacts between potential partners through the use of chat rooms and virtual
communities” (Gastaldo, et. al. 171). However,when barebacking is discussed among men on the
Internet, it is less “often framed in terms of pathology (relapse) or sin (slipping up)” (Plant and Scheon 2)
and can often attributed to the following principles:
 informed consent (upfront disclosure of HIV status)
 contractual interaction
 free market choice (choosing a partner of seroconcordant status)

By Eric J. Roberson
 personal responsibility (the onus is on you personally)
 networked society (vis-a-vis the Internet).
Since “slipping up” is not always the case and HIV transmission is rising among gay men, barebacking
must be considered a reaction to overly-simplified prevention efforts that have failed (Plant and Scheon
2). Communication is a mitigating factor aligned with neoliberal ideologies like personal responsibility
and informed consent. Along with compassion, communication is essential to helping each other decide
when it is reasonable to leave the condoms on the nightstand. Getting tested and knowing your HIV
status is paramount in the quest to reduce new infections particularly among younger gay men along with
the process of serosorting and the use of condoms for casualsexual encounters. Men who profess to be
DDF when posting personal ads online must support their claims with recent HIV test results for the
process of serosorting to work. For the mainstream public, speaking the same language of gay men can
be a display of compassion and will help to build trust among a community apprehensive of outside
interference. Since the terms bareback,DDF, poz, and raw are used online by a significant number of
MSM, this research asserts it is OK to engage with an audience of gay men in their own language.
Risk is something everyone subjects themselves to in life, and risk is an important concept for
some barebackers’ identities (Gastaldo et. al. 174, 177). Since articulations of condom use have shifted
because of HIV treatment advancements and improved healthcare for gay men, society must mobilize to
meet the challenges posed in a new era of HIV as attitudes about the life-threatening epidemic evolves
(Adam 334). Knowing the language that barebackers use is an important step in that direction. “It is not
hard to understand how barebacking has since come to be construed… as a transgression of the covenant
worked out in the 1980s and 1990s, and barebackers have been constructed as ostensible rebels… beset
by too much ‘AIDS optimism,’ ‘condom fatigue,’ or safe sex ‘relapse’ ” (Adam 334). Since
barebacking is not a new practice and HIV diagnoses are rising, a logical conclusion is that HIV
prevention messages must be adapted to suit how gay culture has evolved, partly due to Internet
communication. Using the language of bareback sex with terms like “DDF,” “poz,” and “raw” are ways
of doing so in prevention messages. Better communication, more compassion, and condoms for casual

By Eric J. Roberson
encounters are three viable solutions that can help gay men have greater relationship fulfillment in the era
of Internet communication and HIV prevention fatigue.

By Eric J. Roberson
Works Cited
Adam, Barry D. “Constructing the Neoliberal Sexual Actor: Responsibility and Care of the Self in the
Discourse of Barebackers.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 7.4 (2005): pp. 333-346. Web. 5 Oct.
2009.
Balan, Ivan, Alex Carballow-Dieguez, Curtis Dolezal, Gary W. Dowsett,Peter Lin, Oswaldo Luciano,
Robert H. Remien, Ana Ventuneac. “Cybercartography of Popular Internet Sites Used by new
York City Men Who Have Sex with Men Interested in Bareback Sex.” AIDS Education and
Prevention 18.6 (2006): pp. 475-489. Web. 5 Oct. 2009.
Bauermeister, Jose and Alex Carballo-Dieguez. “ ‘Barebacking’: Intentional Condomless Anal Sex in
HIV-Risk Contexts. Reasons For and Against It.” Journal of Homosexuality 47.1 (2004): pp. 1-
16. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Baurenmeister, Jose and Alex Carballo-Dieguez, Curtis Dolezal, and Ana Ventuneac. “Assessing
Motivations to Engage in Intentional Condomless Anal Intercourse in HIV Risk Contexts
(“Bareback Sex”) Among Men Who Have Sex With Men.” AIDS Education and Prevention 21.2
(2009): pp. 156-168. Web. 28 Sep. 2009.
Bimbi, David S. and Jeffrey T. Parsons. “Intentional Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Sex Who have
Sex with Men: Barebacking—from Behavior to Identity.” AIDS & Behavior, 15 June 2006: pp.
277-285. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Cox, Spencer. ”Risky Business.” The Body Complete HIV/AIDS Resource-thebody.com,Winter
2005/2006: pp. 1-2. Web 24 Sep. 2009.
Gastaldo, Denise and Dave Holmes, Anthony Lombardo, and Patrick O’Byrne. “Bareback Sex: A
Conflation of Risk and Masculinity.” International Journal of Men’s Health 7.2 (2008): pp. 171-
191. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.

By Eric J. Roberson
Halkitis, Perry N. and James A. Pollock. Environmental Factors in Relation to Unprotected Sexual
Behavior Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other MSM.” AIDS Education and Prevention 21.4 (2009):
pp. 340-355. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
“HIV Treatment Optimism Among Gay Men: An International Perspective.” Journalof Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndromes 32.5 (2003): pp. 1-3. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Plant, Aaron and Nicolas Sheon. “Protease Dis-Inhibitors? The Gay Bareback Phenomenon.”
Managingdesire.org, n.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2009.
Scott Daddy. “Playing It Safe.” 1 Sep. 2009 pp.1-3. Web. 24 Sep. 2009.
Treanor, Paul. “Neoliberalism: origins, theory, definition.” InterNLnet, 2 Dec. 2005. Web. 19 Oct.
2009.
Vogel, Mark. “MSM, Sex, and Internet Chat Rooms: Epicenter of an Epidemic?” HIV Insight, 23 Jun
2004. Web. 2 Oct. 2009.

Eric J. Roberson
ENG 6318 – StylisticsandEditing
Dr. Moosally – UHD Spring2010 Semester
13 May 2011
Appendix
REGION Numberof Ads
from 26-Apr-2011
Numberof Ads
from 27-Apr-2011
Total Number of
Ads
TERMS Total Ads
Containing
At Least One Term
Perecent
Bareback DDF Poz Raw
New York (East) 1599 1461 3060 16 265 11 20 312 10.20%
Chicago (North) 878 906 1784 11 303 4 3 321 17.99%
Houston (South) 310 388 698 1 190 4 7 202 28.94%
Los Angeles
(West) 1192 1303 2495 19 143 8 17 187 7.49%
TOTAL 8037 TOTAL 16.16%

By Eric J. Roberson

Robersone5_ENG6318_FinalEssayOnLanguageUse

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Robersone5_ENG6318_FinalEssayOnLanguageUse

Similar to Robersone5_ENG6318_FinalEssayOnLanguageUse (16)

More from Eric Roberson

More from Eric Roberson (20)

Robersone5_ENG6318_FinalEssayOnLanguageUse