What We Can’t See? Understanding the Representations and Meanings of UAI, Barebacking, and Semen Exchange in Gay Male Pornography

Abstract

Since the late 1990s, the use of condoms within gay male pornography has been on the wane. Moving from a niche category into more mainstream forms of commercial pornography, unprotected anal sex has become a dominant theme within this sphere of gay male sexual representation. However, while the definition of what constitutes bareback pornography may at first sight appear unproblematic, this article argues that meanings and understandings of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) are not constant across all genres of gay male pornography. Using textual analysis and focus group methods, the authors demonstrate how subcultural understandings of UAI are dependent on a variety of textual factors. These include the age, body type, and racial identities of the performers; the setting, context, and mise-en-scène of the pornographic scene; and the deployment of power relations between the insertive and receptive partners.

The article concludes by suggesting that the recognition of the diverse representations of “barebacking” found in contemporary gay male pornography should influence the ways in which health promotion strategies address discussions of UAI and bareback pornography.

KEYWORDS:

• barebacking
• pornography
• semen exchange
• HIV
• sexual risk
• representation

Notes

1. The title of this article borrows from Paul Morris’s 1999 film What I Can’t See, which the production company, Treasure Island Media, proudly claims is “the first bareback gangbang video” to be commercially distributed. Shot in a hotel room in San Francisco, the title refers to the ocular depravation of the receptive partner—the “bottom”—who remains blindfolded throughout a group sex marathon involving 25 men penetrating him anally and orally during one evening.

2. Barebacking came to international prominence following a Rolling Stone article (Freeman, 2003). Meanwhile, in the UK, The Guardian has featured several articles in the subject of barebacking and bareback pornography (see Wells, 2000, and Riley, 2009).

3. In 2012, the final episode of the ninth series of Shameless (Channel 4) included a reference to heterosexual bareback sex. This follows the previous use of the term in the critically acclaimed British film Kidulthood (dir. Huda, 2006).

4. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the late porn star and author Scott O’Hara first coined the term in the early 1990s.

5. MSM—men who have sex with men.

6. In using the term neoliberal, we acknowledge the critically insightful work of Adam (2005) in this arena of research.

7. Viewing statistics, popularity ratings, and sales data were used in the development of this corpus.

8. The decision not to screen pornographic scenes during the focus groups but to describe scenes obviously points toward a potential limitation of this research. This was a decision that, as researchers, we spent a long time discussing. This discussion centered primarily on balancing our wish to obtain valid data from our participants with our commitment to ensuring the safety and comfort of those who volunteered to take part in this research. Added to this was the advice sought and proffered from the ethical review board of the participating academic institution and the participating health organization’s (legitimate) concerns regarding the funding of research that screened images of unprotected sex—images that remain highly controversial to many. Inevitably, the issue of public relations also played a role in the decision-making process. During the period of research, the project partners were repeatedly asked (in hostile tones) why research into representations of UAI was being funded by an organization that promotes sexual health and safer sex among gay/bi/MSM men. Irrespective of our motives and our methodology, some felt it inappropriate that the Terrence Higgins Trust be involved with anything that touched on bareback pornography. To say that bareback pornography remains a highly inflammatory subject is an understatement. Our decision not to screen scenes means that embodied reactions to the material could not be traced in the research. Likewise, we have been unable to base our analysis within the framework of audience and reception studies and draw on the valuable tools that this branch of media research might offer. However, we finally agreed that the ethical implications of screening instances of UAI outweighed the limitations of using other methods of engagement.

9. See, for example, Papadopoulos (2010) and Bailey (2011).

10. Full details of the legislation can be found on the UK government legislation Web site (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/63).

11. Culturally specific understandings of race mean that although this research found some hesitancy around “speaking race” in a British context, focus groups run in different national contexts may well offer less (or indeed more) reluctance.

12. Which, interestingly, was far more prevalent in pornography that involved condom use.

13. Cum-play is a colloquial term for a range of practices that involve ejaculate. These include using a finger or penis to “push” semen into an anus, licking cum and then exchanging it orally, pushing semen that has been ejaculated into the anus back out, licking or sucking semen out of an anus (“felching”), drinking semen, masturbating using semen as lubricant, and a plethora of other acts.

14. Of note here is Elliot’s (2009) analysis of Lum’s experimental film, Indelible (2004), in which he makes an argument for identifying semen (particularly when not aligned with reproduction) as an abject material, noting that such abjection comes from semen’s “association with fatally infectious sexually transmitted disease in unprotected sex” (p. 146).

15. Indeed, the invisibility of HIV was a key issue within HIV campaigns throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Within gay men’s health promotion, the fact that HIV was undetectable to the human eye and the contemporaneous understanding that HIV status could not be “read” on the body of a sexual partner were central messages disseminated through advertising material.

16. This is not to suggest that ejaculation and ejaculate are not faked in pornography (whether gay or straight). Escoffier (2007) reports one performer confessing that he once used hand cream in lieu of being able to achieve an orgasm during a performance.

17. Indeed, while some directors include a declaration regarding the negative status of their performers, gay men’s high degree of knowledge of HIV testing (see Sigma, 2011) and infection would suggest that they are aware that screening requires a 3-month window and retesting at the end of this period to ensure an accurate picture of an individual’s HIV status.

18. Such as negotiated, unprotected sex between monogamous partners who have tested for STIs together beforehand.

19. All claims that the authors of this article strongly refute. One need only point toward the recent forays into UAI by big-name gay male studios such as Sean Cody and Blake Mason for evidence that representing condomless sex remains an integral part of the gay male pornoscape.