Gay Patriot Header Image

New York Times Notices that Bareback Sex is a Thing

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990’s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

Bareback sex has major health complications vis-a-vis the transmission of HIV and other STDs that contribute to the high cost of health care. Make you wonder why Bloomberg didn’t try to outlaw it. Hooking up for raw sex with strangers is at least as dangerous as a Big Gulp. Probably.

Share

16 Comments

  1. Hooking up for raw sex with strangers is at least as dangerous as a Big Gulp.

    Aren’t they the same thing?

    Comment by Ignatius — December 1, 2013 @ 10:34 am - December 1, 2013

  2. Aren’t they the same thing?

    You’ve got it backwards.

    Comment by Sathar — December 1, 2013 @ 10:48 am - December 1, 2013

  3. You’ve got it backwards.

    You mean to tell me that I’ve been doing it wrong?

    Comment by Ignatius — December 1, 2013 @ 10:53 am - December 1, 2013

  4. You mean to tell me that I’ve been doing it wrong?

    Maybe we should set up a lecture series with accompanying skills lab.

    Comment by Sathar — December 1, 2013 @ 12:23 pm - December 1, 2013

  5. “And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.”

    The sarcasm, it burns! But not as much as the bacteria and viruses will.

    Sadly, I have known gay men and lesbians who insisted that their brief sexual encounters with strangers were profoundly meaningful. Don’t know how many of them are still alive now, 30 years later.

    Comment by pst314 — December 1, 2013 @ 1:19 pm - December 1, 2013

  6. To the casual supporters of “gay marriage”, I say, snap out of it. You’re supporting a nonsensical and dangerous idea. And we are not just talking about homosexuals, we are also talking about bi-sexuals.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 1, 2013 @ 2:50 pm - December 1, 2013

  7. Der Perfesser:

    ….as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection.

    You could say the same for man with Twinkie or man with goat or man with garden hose or man with flock of little boys or teacher with students or warden with inmates.

    Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged.

    Get it? I don’t. First off, what the Hell is “emotional connection?” Is the “emotional connection” between the rapist and his prey the same as the “emotional connection” between a twin and his sibling who is dying of cancer? Since I have no idea of what constitutes “emotional connection” in this fool’s world, I clearly have no understanding of what follows …. which is a rhetorical disaster.

    To wit: emotional connection “may be (but not necessarily) symbolized” …. huh? How does one arrive at “symbolizing” “emotional correctness” if we do not know what constitutes the parameters of “emotional correctness”?

    But, wait! We are not really just “symbolizing” and moving on. Nope. We are “symbolizing in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged.”

    Wait, dude. You think there is “something tangible” buried within an amorphous phrase because you divine an aura of an idea of something that “may be” emanating from the penumbra of “emotional connection”? Have I got that right?

    Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged.

    A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.Wow! Der Perfesser has examined and ruled.

    So, the poor man in search of scratching his need for emotional connection is victimized by his overwhelming needs which “outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.” Clearly the “rules” are some sort of social injustice forced down upon the downtrodden in their quest for “emotional connection” which trumps common sense, any form of personal responsibility or integrity within the community.

    Der Perfesser professes individual anarchy as a validation of amorality. But, I doubt seriously that the loon has any idea of what he is saying or promoting. He just has to find a way to form an emotional connection that might be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged by his symbolically kissing the ass of the man he has classified as victim.

    There. That is how the game is played.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 1, 2013 @ 3:21 pm - December 1, 2013

  8. Swell … The first time I’m on GP in months, and you make me look something up.

    I guess I have to come here more often, at least for the educational value. 😉

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 1, 2013 @ 7:00 pm - December 1, 2013

  9. WB Julie! I’ve missed you ’round here at least.

    It’s funny. I had a conversation online with a BDSM slave in Orlando. She was 20 something, and shocked I didn’t have casual sex. Unfortunately the ‘hooking up for raw sex’ isn’t limited to any group anymore.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 1, 2013 @ 7:14 pm - December 1, 2013

  10. As I recall, about 9 or 10 years ago there was a big story someplace about “bug-chasers” and bareback sex which got some attention in the blogosphere and shortly thereafter the allies of the gay activist groups put out the word that it was a hoax and not true at all, which, as we know, was completely ridiculous, but all part of the campaign to clean up the image for the sake of activism. Then, a few years after that, the activists did their best to silence reports that linked MRSA to risky gay sex. Needless to say, one wonders when the NYT will decide to publish a retraction of this story.

    Comment by Kurt — December 1, 2013 @ 8:21 pm - December 1, 2013

  11. […] Gay Patriot bravely steps out on this subject and accepts the challenge… as any rational thinking conservatarian would: […]

    Pingback by Religio-Political Talk (RPT) Gay Patriot Tackles A Killer in the Gay Community ~ Morally Equating Actions via the Left — December 1, 2013 @ 10:32 pm - December 1, 2013

  12. Even though it is dangerous and irresponsible, I can understand the reason ofs, some are just plain ignorant others find the condom uncomfortabel or reduces the pleasure of the act. As for me I am practicing abstinence, or resorting to Mary Palm and her five ugly daughters because I don´t like wearing a raincoat. I wonder if the Times mentioned that in Greece, men are having bareback with the hopes of being infected to get the $700. monthly stipend (welfare). Things must really be bad over there. This is socialism at it´s best?

    Comment by Roberto — December 2, 2013 @ 11:35 am - December 2, 2013

  13. A long time ago, the PBS series NOVA had a program about epidemiology – specifically regarding an outbreak of hepatitis B in a gay population (NYC, maybe?).

    Anyway, they interviewed some guy (who was cute, if I recall) who figured he had had about 200 sexual contacts in six months. I remember thinking at the time that if you simply kissed 200 people in six months, you’d be guaranteed to catch something.

    Comment by KCRob (SoCalRobert) — December 2, 2013 @ 9:39 pm - December 2, 2013

  14. “Tim Dean, a professor of English and the director of the Center for the Study of Psychoanalysis and Culture at the State University of New York at Buffalo” who wrote the NYT piece, may as well have titled it…

    I Am Completely Insane

    The piece is so filled with Teh Krazeh that I really don’t know which statement or idea to pick apart first.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 3, 2013 @ 12:15 am - December 3, 2013

  15. There are at least two good reasons not to have sex until you are in some kind of committed relationship:

    1. Obviously, this reduces the chances of getting an STD (and, in the case of heterosexuals, becoming pregnant).

    2. I have to imagine that it makes people empty inside, at least as far as relationships go. Sex is probably the most intimate act there is, and allowing strangers to get that close to would, I would think, cheapen it and ultimately limit the closeness you would able to have with someone you actually love, because the former expression of intimacy now means nothing. So, I would argue that frequently having anonymous sex “intimacy, vulnerability and connection” probably does the opposite in the end. Of course, I’m not a psychologist or anything, but I’m sure that would be the case for me, at least.

    That is why I am not only still a virgin, but also abstinent.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 3, 2013 @ 3:00 pm - December 3, 2013

  16. #5 – “The sarcasm, it burns! But not as much as the bacteria and viruses will.

    Sadly, I have known gay men and lesbians who insisted that their brief sexual encounters with strangers were profoundly meaningful. Don’t know how many of them are still alive now, 30 years later.”

    So true…………….How many indeed.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 3, 2013 @ 11:35 pm - December 3, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.