Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking
Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking
复制标题
无限的亲密：对无鞍亚文化的反思
DOI：
10.1007/s10508-010-9641-0
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
David A. Moskowitz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David A. Moskowitz
自 20 世纪 90 年代末首次认识以来，男同性恋者在肛交或无鞍性行为中主动避免使用安全套的行为已广为流行。一旦被认为是纯粹的行为，包括心理学家在内的研究人员认为，这种行为已经超越了无保护性交的行为，并且可能构成一种亚文化（Halkitis、Wilton 和 Galatowitsch，2005）。迪恩在这本备受争议的书中热心支持这一假设，该书从后现代的角度探讨了无鞍和相关的追虫/送礼（积极寻找/传播艾滋病毒感染）的亚文化。这项工作支持了少数人的观点：无鞍可能是男同性恋者健康且站得住脚的性表达方式，有助于通过“繁殖”实现平等主义、自我实现、亲属关系网络，并扭转艾滋病毒感染的负面现象。那些从事艾滋病毒/性病预防研究或职业的人无疑会认为迪恩的证据是现象学的、随意的和有偏见的。那些表现出安全套疲劳的艾滋病毒阳性和阴性男同性恋者，或者那些因临床经验而与此类男性接触过的人，可能会证实大多数（如果不是全部）作为不可否认事实的断言。无论立场如何，读者都会发现迪恩的作品引人入胜、令人愤怒、真实、虚假、宣泄和危险。由于这些原因，每个性行为研究者和同性恋者都必须阅读这本书。迪恩的著作分为四章，不包括标题为“无套性交者的自白”的冗长引言。在引言中，无套性交被明确定义为故意的无套肛交，以排除某些无保护性行为的情况（例如，一夫一妻制的主要伴侣之间、意外失误等）。他讨论了被贴上“无鞍”标签的行为的相对较新的历史、其向亚文化的转变、无鞍者倾向于尽量减少艾滋病毒感染的方式、标签的政治和同性恋文化，以及他在书中提出的主张背后的理由和“研究方法”。迪恩承认，自 2007 年起，他就是一名 HIV 呈阴性的裸男。第一章“繁殖文化”深入探讨了追逐昆虫和赠送礼物的现象。迪恩提供了后现代的理由来解释为什么男性会积极尝试感染艾滋病毒（例如，感染证明了男子气概，直肠提供了子宫，艾滋病毒呈阳性的兄弟情谊得以建立）。“追逐虫子、交换精液和赠送礼物可能被认为是同性婚姻的替代方案……因为艾滋病毒使体液的交换有点类似于交换结婚戒指”（第85页）。他在本章的最后指出，艾滋病毒提供了更强烈的亲属关系和血缘感。第二章的标题是“代表原始性行为”，概述了色情作品中无鞍性行为的血统，并探讨了如何以及为何向同性恋和双性恋男性推销这种性行为。他指出同性恋和异性恋色情片在使用安全套方面存在双重标准。对精液、精液游戏（例如冷冻精子冰棒）、射精和扩张直肠的电影和色情价值进行了深入分析。他身上充满了他人的色情痕迹”（第142-143页）。在第三章“病毒拜物教、视觉拜物教”中，迪恩审视了当代色情作品中的拜物教行为。听说，赤身裸体之所以如此迷恋，是因为这是一种社会禁忌。男同性恋者不得发生无保护措施的性行为。他继续将无鞍色情片和色情片进行比较……
The active eschewal of condoms by gay men during anal intercourse, or barebacking, has gained popularity since its initial recognition in the late 1990s. Once considered purely behavioral, researchers, including psychologists, have argued that the behavior has transcended unprotected intercourse as an act and may constitute a subculture (Halkitis, Wilton, & Galatowitsch, 2005). Dean ardently supports this hypothesis in this highly controversial book, which explores from a postmodern perspective barebacking and the related subcultures of bug chasing/gift giving (actively seeking/transmitting HIV infection). The work supports a minority opinion: barebacking may be a healthy and tenable expression of sexuality by gay men that contributes to egalitarianism, self-actualization, kinship networks through ‘‘breeding,’’and the reversal of HIV infection as a negative occurrence. Those whose research or occupations champion HIV/STD prevention unquestionably will dismiss Dean’s evidence as phenomenological, haphazard, and biased. Those HIV-positive and negative gay men exhibiting condom fatigue, orthosewhoseclinicalexperiencesputthemincontactwithsuch men, likely will confirm most, if not all, of the assertions made as undeniable facts. Regardless of the position, readers will find Dean’s work compelling, infuriating, true, false, cathartic, and dangerous. For these reasons, every sexual behavior researcher and gay man must read this book. Dean’s work is divided into four chapters, excluding a lengthy introduction entitled,‘‘Confessions of a Barebacker.’’In the introduction, barebacking is specifically defined as intentional condomless anal intercourse that precludes certain instances of unprotected sex (eg, between main partners who are monogamous, accidental slips, etc.). He discusses the relativelyrecenthistoryoftheactbeinglabeledas ‘‘barebacking,’’its transition into a subculture, the ways in which barebackers tend to minimize HIV infection, the politics of labeling and gay culture, and his rationale and ‘‘research methods’’behind the assertions made in the book. Dean confesses to being an HIV-negative barebacker as of 2007. The first chapter,‘‘Breeding Culture,’’delves into the bug chasing and gift-giving phenomena. Dean offers postmodern rationales for why men may actively try to acquire HIV (eg, infection proves masculinity, the rectum provides a womb where HIV-positive brotherhood is created).‘‘Bug chasing, cum swapping, and gift giving may be considered alternatives to gay marriage… because HIV makes the exchange of bodily fluids somewhat akin to the exchange of wedding rings’’(p. 85). He concludes this chapter by arguing that HIV provides for stronger senses of kinship and consanguinity. The second chapter, entitled ‘‘Representing Raw Sex,’’outlines the lineage of bareback sex in pornography and explores how and why this sort of sex is marketed to gay and bisexual men. He notes the double standards between gay and straight porn regarding condom use. In-depth analyses of the cinematic and erotic value of semen, semen-play (eg, frozen sperm popsicles), ejaculation, and distended rectums are argued.‘‘As seventy-three loads of ejaculate melt into his orifices and over every surface, it becomes impossible to tell whose semen is inside him and whose is outside; he is pervaded by the erotic traces of others’’(pp. 142–143). In the third chapter,‘‘Viral Fetishism, Visual Fetishism,’’Dean examines the fetish behaviors enacted in contemporary pornography. Barebackingisonesuchfetish, heargues, because it is a social taboo. Gay men must not have unprotected sex. He continues by drawing parallels between bareback porn and porn …