I have to preface my comments by saying that I'm not the intended demographic for ACT UP's message, so my opinion here probably has limited value.

However, I think that "Boycott Bareback" is an excellent campaign message. It's blunt - there's no misunderstanding its meaning; it's bold - it gets your attention; it's simple, therefore memorable; and it demands an action. These are all necessary elements for a successful campaign.

The sex police charge seems weak. No one can or will physically stop anyone from praticing unsafe sex, nor can anyone be punished for it per se.

But I have to say that the notion that no one else can judge whether or not it's worthwhile to become HIV+ is one that I reject. Anyone who really understands the consequences of being HIV+ and has normally functioning cognitive abilities cannot believe that barebacking is worth the risk.

I'd like to point out that if someone practiced safer sex 100%, they wouldn't have the basis of comparison to rate barebacking, which is yet another reason never to do it.

Society has accepted that there are certain communal risks and responsibilities of individual choices. For example, there are motorcycle helmet laws because someone has to scrape up your dumb ass off the concrete, get you to the hospital and treat you, and pay to keep you alive and functioning with brain damage if you don't know enough to wear a helmet on your own. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect people to think getting HIV is a bad thing.

One either has very safe sex or very monogamous sex.

As an activist I have to say that blatant barebacking is a public relations nightmare for LGBT activism vis 'a vis the endless weilding of weaponry by the Christian Right.

Okay, but let's put this into perspective. As Eric points out, there's a difference between barebackers and being high/drunk/horny and fucking up and not using a condom. So, yes, there is a basis for comparing condom sex and unsafe sex. That's a red herring in my opinion.

However, I agree with that commenter that "Boycott Barebacking" is a great slogan. I don't see it sex policing as much as a short "sound bit" that'll stick in folks' heads.

The message needs to change from "Wear condoms" or "boycott bareback" to "Why are we barebacking each other?"

Your version just doesn't flow nicely in big block letters on a poster, Eric. I see your point, but you have to distill it down into something shorter and more memorable.

Great article. More of our community should read it and start the conversation.

I think the sex police police are a bigger problem than the sex police.

I don't think it matters whether you distinguish between barebacking and "merely" unsafe sex in terms of HIV prevention. The act is the same, and so are the consequences. I understand the "lifestyle" aspect of it (if you'll excuse the expression) and why Eric differentiates it as virtually a fetish. But I also think that 100% safer sex compliance is an attainable goal.

If people really *get* what being HIV+ means, they can make safer sex a cardinal rule. Horny and/or drunk? There are other ways to have sex that have comparatively little to no risk. And if you're that drunk, how can you really know how good the sex was?

As for Eric's question about why barebacking is practiced, the semi-flip answer is because it's considered hot. But as far as the underlying psychology, I think it's wrapped up with the notion of legitimacy.

That is, "real" sex is a man and woman having intercourse. "Gay sex" is a gerryrigged approximation. Condoms are to prevent pregnancy. I hasten to add that these are not my views.

But I remember reading (and I really don't remember where) an entire discussion about how two men in a relationship had finally had sex. They, of course, had been having a lot of oral sex, humping, and mutual masturbation, but that didn't count (to them). They were waiting for six months worth of HIV- tests since they were together so they could have condomless intercourse. (Apparently, intercourse with a condom was rejected as an unacceptable alternative and also not "real" sex.)

So it was an occasion of joy when they finally had sex after waiting six months. As you might imagine, this sentiment prompted a lot of back and forth about what is real and valid and reaonable.

They were adamant that sex had to include penetration. You can probably guess the elements of sexism and heterosexism that might contribute to such a philosophy. But if we don't think the basic format (for lack of a better word) of some of our relationships isn't valid, that's going to have an impact on our self esteem. Many argue that until we believe we're worth protecting from HIV, sexual and health related behavior isn't going to change.