4) argue that barebacking ‘may be viewed as reinforcement of a sexual identity, resistance to imposed behavioural norms, creation of a new sexual and political identity, or a continuation of practices unaffected by organized messages aimed at stopping such practices’. Researchers have also tackled a related topic: bareback identity. This definitional imprecision leads to difficulty in comparing findings andin developing evidence-based prevention responses. Yet, that acknowledgement has not led to any resolution, with authors choosing differing terms for different reasons. Many authors acknowledge problems in defining bareback. As a result, proportions of respondents endorsing different definitions vary widely. Furthermore, when brief scenarios were used to elicit information, they did not specify the HIV status of protagonists. 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. (2006), in a Central Arizona study, found that 64 percent of their respondents concur with Halkitis et al.’s participants, but add that this means with any sexual partner. (2005a) and Halkitis (2007) conclude that bareback meant anal intercourse with no condom use, including heat-of-the-moment cases in which there is temporary non-use. 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. 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.e., asking gay men what bareback sex means. 2003, Grov 2004, Tomso 2004, Bimbi and Parsons 2005) or any ‘sex that occurs without the protection provided by a condom’, not limited to gay men ( Gauthier and Forsyth 1999, p.86). 93) intentional unprotected anal intercourse regardless of serostatus or partner type ( Halkitis et al. 653 Berg in press) ‘intentionally seeking or engaging in unprotected anal sex among HIV-positive gay men’ ( Elford et al. Other researchers defined it as: ‘intentional anal sex without a condom with someone other than a primary partner’ ( Mansergh et al. Some researchers chose ‘intentional condomless anal intercourse in HIV-risk contexts’ ( Carballo-Diéguez and Bauermeister 2004, p.1 Suarez and Miller 2001), noting two key elements-intention and risk-that might distinguish the term from other less precise definitions. This attracted the attention of researchers who saw in most cases the need to define the term. Early debates within the gay community focused on the risk of HIV transmission that the practice entailed for both HIV-seroconcordant and serodiscordant partners (see Carballo-Diéguez and Bauermeister 2004, for an earlier review see also Junge 2002). However, by the time Silverstein and Picano published a new edition of the iconic The Joy of Gay Sex in 2003, bareback was defined simply as condomless gay sex. It initially referred to intentional condomless anal intercourse, mainly among HIV-infected gay men ( Gendin 1997). The term ‘bareback’ appeared in the gay press in the mid-1990s.
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. Any identification as barebacker appeared too loose to be of use from a public health prevention perspective.
Results showed overall agreement with a basic definition of bareback sex as condomless anal intercourse, but considerable variation on other elements. Using in-depth, face-to-face interviews with an ethnically diverse sample of 120 HIV infected and uninfected men, mainly gay-identifying, and recruited online in New York City, this study explored respondents’ definitions of bareback sex, the role that intentionality and risk played in those definitions, and whether respondents identified as ‘barebackers’. The terms bareback and bareback identity are increasingly being used in academic discourse on HIV/AIDS without clear operationalisation.